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

net/publication/386100915

Local-Neutrosophic Logic and Local-Neutrosophic Sets: Incorporating

Locality with Applications

Preprint · March 2024

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20859.12324

CITATIONS READS

0 59

1 author:

Takaaki Fujita

142 PUBLICATIONS 406 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Takaaki Fujita on 25 November 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Local-Neutrosophic Logic and Local-Neutrosophic Sets: Incorporating
Locality with Applications
Takaaki Fujita 1 ∗
1 Independent Researcher, Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

Abstract

The study of uncertainty has been a significant area of research, with concepts such as fuzzy sets [87], fuzzy
graphs [51], and neutrosophic sets [58] receiving extensive attention. In Neutrosophic Logic, indeterminacy
often arises from real-world complexities.

This paper explores the concept of locality as a key factor in determining indeterminacy, building upon the
framework introduced by F. Smarandache in [73]. Locality refers to processes constrained within a specific
region, where an object or system is directly influenced by its immediate surroundings. In contrast, nonlocal-
ity involves effects that transcend spatial or temporal boundaries, where changes in one location have direct
implications for another.

This paper introduces the concepts of Local-Neutrosophic Logic and Local-Neutrosophic Set by integrating the
notion of locality into Neutrosophic Logic. It provides their mathematical definitions and examines potential
applications.

Keywords: Neutrosophic Logic, Neutrosophic Set, Fuzzy Logic, Locality

1 Short Introduction

1.1 Uncertain Logic

Uncertainty is an inherent characteristic of real-world events and is often modeled using mathematical frame-
works. In the realm of logic (cf. [12, 81]), several approaches have been developed to address uncertainty, in-
cluding Fuzzy Logic [87,89,90], Neutrosophic Logic [58,62,68], and Plithogenic Logic [67,77]. For instance,
Neutrosophic Logic expands upon classical logic by incorporating three dimensions: truth, indeterminacy, and
falsity. This framework allows for the simultaneous handling of uncertainty and contradictions, making it a
versatile tool for modeling complex systems.

These uncertain logics have been further generalized to other mathematical concepts, such as sets [59, 75] and
graphs [20, 22, 23, 25, 26]. This has led to a proliferation of studies that parallel the development of logical
systems, showcasing their broad applicability across various domains.

1.2 Locality in Neutrosophic Logic

In Neutrosophic Logic, indeterminacy often emerges from real-world factors. This paper investigates locality
as a key determinant of indeterminacy, building on the framework proposed by F. Smarandache in [73].

Locality describes processes confined to a specific region, where an object is influenced by its immediate
surroundings. It can be Total Locality (100 percent, all interactions are local) or Partial Locality (greater than
0 and less than 100 percent). Conversely, Nonlocality involves effects spanning space or time, with changes in
one location influencing another. Like locality, nonlocality may be Total or Partial.

Indeterminacy arises when a system is neither fully local nor nonlocal, often due to hidden variables or envi-
ronmental uncertainty. It too can range from Total to Partial, depending on the extent of ambiguity or mixed
characteristics.

1
1.3 Contributions of This Paper

This paper makes several key contributions:

1. It introduces the novel concepts of Local-Neutrosophic Logic and Local-Neutrosophic Set, incorporating
the notion of locality into the framework of Neutrosophic Logic.

2. It provides precise mathematical definitions for these concepts, laying a robust theoretical foundation.
3. It explores potential applications, demonstrating the practicality and relevance of these ideas in address-
ing uncertainty and contextual dependencies.

1.4 The Structure of the Paper

The structure of this paper is as follows.

1 Short Introduction 1
1.1 Uncertain Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Locality in Neutrosophic Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Contributions of This Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 The Structure of the Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Preliminaries 2
2.1 Basic Definition of Formal Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Neutrosophic Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Neutrosophic Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 Mathematical Framework of Locality, Indeterminacy, and Nonlocality in Neutrosophic Logic 5
3.1 Notations and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Some Real-Life Examples of Locality, Indeterminacy, and Nonlocality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Some Basic Theorem of Locality, Indeterminacy, and Nonlocality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Mathematical Framework of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Indeterminacy 7
4.1 Definitions of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Indeterminacy . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2 Theorems and Proofs of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Indeterminacy . . . 8
4.3 Examples of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Indeterminacy . . . . . . . . . 9
5 New Definition of Local-Neutrosophic Logic and Set 9
5.1 Basic Theorem of Local-Neutrosophic Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2 Examples of Local-Neutrosophic Logic in real-life scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6 Future Tasks of this research 15
6.1 Some Extension of Local-Neutrosophic Logic (Open Question) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2 Neutrosophic Dynamic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2 Preliminaries

2.1 Basic Definition of Formal Language

To explore Upside-Down Logic, several key concepts are introduced below. For further details, readers are
encouraged to consult the respective lecture notes and surveys on these topics (ex. [16, 29, 30, 33, 40]).
Definition 2.1 (Set). [33] A set is a collection of distinct and clearly defined objects, known as elements,
such that any object can be identified as either a member of the set or not. If 𝐴 is a set and 𝑥 is an element of
𝐴, this membership is denoted by 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴. Sets are commonly represented using curly brackets, for example,
𝐴 = {𝑥1 , 𝑥 2 , . . . , 𝑥 𝑛 }.
Definition 2.2 (Formal Language). [29, 49] A formal language L is defined as a set of strings (or sequences)
formed from a finite alphabet Σ, adhering to specific syntactic rules. Formally:

L ⊆ Σ∗ ,

2
where Σ∗ represents the set of all finite strings over the alphabet Σ. The strings in L are referred to as well-
formed formulas (WFFs).

A formal language L is typically characterized by:

• A set of symbols (or alphabet) Σ, which may include logical connectives (e.g., ∧, ∨, ¬), quantifiers (e.g.,
∀, ∃), variables, and parentheses.
• A set of formation rules specifying which strings in Σ∗ qualify as well-formed.
Definition 2.3 (Logical System). (cf. [37]) A logical system M is a mathematical structure used to formalize
reasoning. It is defined as:
M = (P, V, 𝑣),
where:

• P is the set of propositions (or statements) expressed in the formal language L.

• V is the set of truth values, such as {True, False} in classical logic.
• 𝑣 : P → V is a valuation function (or interpretation function) that assigns a truth value to each propo-
sition in P.

Additionally, a logical system may include:

• A set of axioms A ⊆ P, propositions assumed to be true within the system.

• A set of inference rules I, defining valid methods of deriving new truths from existing propositions.

2.2 Neutrosophic Logic

In this subsection, we explore the relationship between Neutrosophic Logic and Upside-Down Logic. First,
we present the definition of Neutrosophic Logic below [21, 58]. Note that Neutrosophic Logic is known to
generalize Fuzzy Logic (cf. [58]).
Definition 2.4 (Neutrosophic Logic). [58] Neutrosophic Logic extends classical logic by assigning to each
proposition a truth value comprising three components:

𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐹),

where 𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐹 ∈ [0, 1] represent the degrees of truth, indeterminacy, and falsity, respectively.
Example 2.5 (Student Performance Evaluation). Student performance evaluation assesses academic progress
using metrics like grades, participation, and skills, identifying strengths and areas for improvement (cf. [7,36]).

In education, Neutrosophic Logic can assess student performance when data is uncertain or incomplete. For
example, consider the proposition ”The student will perform well in the final exam,” represented as:

𝑣( 𝐴) = (0.8, 0.1, 0.1),

where:

• 𝑇 = 0.8: An 80% chance of good performance based on past grades and class participation.
• 𝐼 = 0.1: A 10% level of indeterminacy due to unmeasured factors like stress or unforeseen circumstances.
• 𝐹 = 0.1: A 10% chance of poor performance due to lack of preparation or external distractions.

3
This approach enables educators to provide personalized feedback and prepare targeted interventions to improve
student outcomes(cf. [3, 47, 56]).
Example 2.6 (Medical Diagnosis). In the field of medical diagnosis(cf. [5, 43]), Neutrosophic Logic is em-
ployed to handle uncertain and incomplete information. For instance, consider the proposition ”The patient has
Disease X,” which can be represented as:

𝑣( 𝐴) = (0.6, 0.2, 0.2),

where:

• 𝑇 = 0.6: A 60% probability that the patient has the disease.

• 𝐼 = 0.2: A 20% of the data is inconclusive due to uncertainty in test results or conflicting evidence.
• 𝐹 = 0.2: A 20% probability that the patient does not have the disease.

By integrating test results, symptoms, and expert opinions, this approach enables healthcare professionals to
make more informed diagnostic decisions (cf. [9, 11, 13, 55]).
Example 2.7 (Project Management). Project management involves planning, organizing, and executing tasks
to achieve specific goals within constraints like time, budget, and resources(cf. [15, 17, 18, 80]).

In project management, Neutrosophic Logic can aid in handling uncertainties and risks associated with project
timelines and outcomes. Consider the proposition ”The project will be completed on time,” represented as:

𝑣( 𝐴) = (0.6, 0.25, 0.15),

where:

• 𝑇 = 0.6: A 60% chance that the project will be completed on schedule, based on current progress and
resource availability.
• 𝐼 = 0.25: A 25% level of indeterminacy due to uncertainties like unexpected delays, resource shortages,
or scope changes.
• 𝐹 = 0.15: A 15% chance that the project will not meet the deadline, based on known risks or past trends
in similar projects.

By quantifying these components, project managers can better assess risks and devise strategies such as re-
source reallocation or timeline adjustments to mitigate potential delays. This enhances decision-making under
uncertainty and improves project success rates(cf. [2, 6, 34, 45, 50]).
Example 2.8 (Decision-Making in Business). Neutrosophic Logic also plays a critical role in business decision-
making, particularly under conditions of uncertainty. For example, when evaluating whether to invest in a
project, the proposition ”The project will yield profit” can be represented as:

𝑣( 𝐴) = (0.7, 0.1, 0.2),

where:

• 𝑇 = 0.7: A 70% chance that the project will be profitable.

• 𝐼 = 0.1: A 10% level of uncertainty due to incomplete or ambiguous market data.
• 𝐹 = 0.2: A 20% chance that the project will not be profitable.

This representation allows decision-makers to assess risks and rewards quantitatively, facilitating more effective
strategy formulation (cf. [4, 52]).

4
2.3 Neutrosophic Set

In this subsection, we explain the concept of the Neutrosophic Set [58]. Intuitively, a Neutrosophic Set can
be understood as the set-theoretic extension of Neutrosophic Logic. It is known as a generalization of several
classical and modern set concepts, including the Crisp Set (Classic Set), Fuzzy Set [87,88,91–93], Intuitionistic
Fuzzy Set [61, 76], Vague Set [10, 96], and Paraconsistent Set [83, 84]. The related definitions are provided
below.
Definition 2.9 (Crisp Set). [48] Let 𝑋 be a universe set, and let 𝑃(𝑋) denote the power set of 𝑋, which
represents all subsets of 𝑋. A crisp set 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑋 is defined by a characteristic function 𝜒 𝐴 : 𝑋 → {0, 1}, where:
{
1 if 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴,
𝜒 𝐴 (𝑥) =
0 if 𝑥 ∉ 𝐴.

This function 𝜒 𝐴 assigns a value of 1 to elements within the set 𝐴 and 0 to those outside it, creating a clear
boundary. Crisp sets are thus bivalent and follow the principle of binary classification, where each element is
either a member of the set or not.
Definition 2.10. [58, 60, 78] Let 𝑋 be a given set. A Neutrosophic Set 𝐴 on 𝑋 is characterized by three
membership functions:

𝑇𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐼 𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐹𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1],

where for each 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋, the values 𝑇𝐴 (𝑥), 𝐼 𝐴 (𝑥), and 𝐹𝐴 (𝑥) represent the degree of truth, indeterminacy, and
falsity, respectively. These values satisfy the following condition:

0 ≤ 𝑇𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐼 𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐹𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 3.

3 Mathematical Framework of Locality, Indeterminacy, and Nonlocality in Neutro-

sophic Logic

This section discusses the Mathematical Framework of Locality, Indeterminacy, and Nonlocality in Neutro-
sophic Logic. It redefines these concepts within the context of Neutrosophic Logic, providing basic consider-
ations and illustrative examples.

3.1 Notations and Definitions

Below, we present the Notations and Definitions of Locality, Indeterminacy, and Nonlocality in Neutrosophic
Logic.

Notation 3.1. Let P denote the set of propositions, C the set of contexts, and 𝑇 : P×C → {True, False, Indeterminate}
a truth valuation function. Each proposition 𝐴 ∈ P is associated with a neutrosophic truth value 𝑣( 𝐴) =
(𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐹), where:
𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐹 ∈ [0, 1], 𝑇 + 𝐼 + 𝐹 ≤ 1,
represent the degrees of truth (𝑇), indeterminacy (𝐼), and falsity (𝐹), respectively.
Remark 3.2. The sum 𝑇 + 𝐼 + 𝐹 does not necessarily equal 1, allowing for partial states. This flexibility is a
core feature of neutrosophic logic.

Definition 3.3 (Context). [74] A context C is a set of parameters or conditions under which propositions are
evaluated. This may include spatial, temporal, semantic, or interpretative settings.
Definition 3.4 (Locality). (cf. [73]) A proposition 𝐴 exhibits locality if its truth value depends solely on a
single context C ∈ C. Formally:
𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝑇 ( 𝐴, C),
where C represents the immediate spatial, temporal, or conceptual domain affecting 𝐴.

5
Definition 3.5 (Indeterminacy). (cf. [73]) A proposition 𝐴 exhibits indeterminacy if its truth value includes
a non-zero degree of 𝐼 due to hidden variables, insufficient information, or ambiguity within the context C.
Formally:
𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐹), with 𝐼 > 0.
Definition 3.6 (Nonlocality). (cf. [73]) A proposition 𝐴 exhibits nonlocality if its truth value depends on mul-
tiple, spatially or conceptually separate contexts C1 , C2 ∈ C. Formally:
𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝑇 ( 𝐴, C1 , C2 ), with C1 ∩ C2 = ∅.
Definition 3.7 (Multilocality). (cf. [73]) A proposition 𝐴 exhibits multilocality if its truth value depends on a
𝑛 . Formally:
set of interacting local contexts {C𝑖 }𝑖=1
𝑛
𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝑇 ( 𝐴, {C𝑖 }𝑖=1 ),
where each C𝑖 is confined to a specific local domain.
Definition 3.8 (Multiindeterminacy). (cf. [73]) A proposition 𝐴 exhibits multiindeterminacy if its truth value
includes cumulative indeterminacy across multiple contexts:
∑
𝑛
𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐹), where 𝐼 = 𝐼𝑖 > 0,
𝑖=1

and 𝐼𝑖 represents the degree of indeterminacy in each context C𝑖 .

Definition 3.9 (Multinonlocality). (cf. [73]) A proposition 𝐴 exhibits multinonlocality if its truth value depends
on interactions across multiple nonlocal contexts {C𝑖 , C 𝑗 }𝑖≠ 𝑗 :
𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝑇 ( 𝐴, {C𝑖 , C 𝑗 }𝑖≠ 𝑗 ),
where C𝑖 ∩ C 𝑗 = ∅.

3.2 Some Real-Life Examples of Locality, Indeterminacy, and Nonlocality

This subsection presents some real-life examples of locality, indeterminacy, and nonlocality.
Example 3.10 (Traffic Flow (Locality)). Let 𝐴: ”The traffic density on road segment 𝑅 is high.”

Context C: The immediate local parameters affecting 𝑅, such as vehicle count, average speed, and weather
conditions, determine 𝑣( 𝐴):
𝑣( 𝐴) = (0.8, 0.1, 0.1),
where 𝑇 = 0.8 indicates high traffic density based on local observations. Locality is evident as 𝐴 depends
solely on C.
Example 3.11 (Quantum Entanglement (Nonlocality)). Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where parti-
cles share linked states, such that changing one instantly affects the other, regardless of distance (cf. [31, 85]).

Let 𝐴: ”The spin of particle 𝑃1 is up.”

Contexts C1 , C2 : Measurement of 𝑃1 in C1 instantly determines the spin of 𝑃2 in C2 :

𝑣( 𝐴) = (1, 0, 0), if 𝑃2 spin is down in C2 .
Nonlocality is evident as 𝑣( 𝐴) spans C1 and C2 .
Example 3.12 (Stock Market Volatility (Indeterminacy)). Stock market volatility measures rapid price fluctu-
ations in financial markets, influenced by economic events, investor behavior, and uncertainty (cf. [14, 41]).

Let 𝐵: ”The stock price of company 𝑋 will increase tomorrow.”

Context C: Factors such as market trends, global events, and investor sentiment introduce indeterminacy. The
truth value is:
𝑣(𝐵) = (0.5, 0.4, 0.1),
where 𝐼 = 0.4 reflects uncertainty due to incomplete or ambiguous data. Indeterminacy arises from unpre-
dictable market influences.

6
Example 3.13 (Climate Models (Multiindeterminacy)). Let 𝐵: ”Global temperature will rise by 1◦ C in 50
years.”

Contexts {C𝑖 }3𝑖=1 : Varying predictions from three models yield:

∑
3
𝑣(𝐵) = (0.6, 0.3, 0.1), where 𝐼 = 0.3 = 𝐼𝑖 .
𝑖=1

Multiindeterminacy arises from differing model assumptions.

Example 3.14 (Global Communications (Multinonlocality)). Let 𝐸: ”Information is transmitted successfully
across the network.”

Contexts {C𝑖 , C 𝑗 }𝑖≠ 𝑗 : The reliability of nodes in separate regions C𝑖 and C 𝑗 determines:
𝑣(𝐸) = (0.9, 0.05, 0.05),
where multinonlocality reflects the interaction between contexts C𝑖 and C 𝑗 across the global network.

3.3 Some Basic Theorem of Locality, Indeterminacy, and Nonlocality

In this subsection, we present Some Basic Theorems of Locality, Indeterminacy, and Nonlocality.
Theorem 3.15 (Consistency of Locality). If a proposition 𝐴 is local, then the truth value 𝑣( 𝐴) is unaffected
by nonlocal contexts. Formally:
𝑇 ( 𝐴, C1 ) = 𝑇 ( 𝐴, C2 ) for all C1 , C2 ≠ C.

Proof. Locality assumes 𝐴 is influenced only by C. For C1 , C2 ≠ C, the absence of influence implies:
𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝑇 ( 𝐴, C),
and thus 𝑇 ( 𝐴, C1 ) = 𝑇 ( 𝐴, C2 ) follows trivially. □
Theorem 3.16 (Additivity of Multiindeterminacy). For a proposition 𝐴 exhibiting multiindeterminacy across
𝑛 , the total indeterminacy satisfies:
𝑛 contexts {C𝑖 }𝑖=1
∑
𝑛
𝐼= 𝐼𝑖 , where 𝐼𝑖 > 0 for each C𝑖 .
𝑖=1

Proof. By definition, multiindeterminacy aggregates indeterminacy from individual contexts:

∑
𝑛
𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐹), 𝐼= 𝐼𝑖 .
𝑖=1

The constraint 𝐼𝑖 > 0 ensures that each context contributes to the total indeterminacy. □

4 Mathematical Framework of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial In-

determinacy
In this section, we examine the Mathematical Framework of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial
Indeterminacy.

An overview of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Indeterminacy is provided below:

• Partial Locality refers to a situation where an object or system is partially influenced by its immediate
surroundings, with limited external interactions or dependencies.
• Partial Non-Locality describes a condition where an object or system is partially influenced by distant
factors or entities without direct physical contact.
• Partial Indeterminacy represents a system exhibiting unclear or mixed characteristics, influenced neither
entirely locally nor entirely non-locally.

7
4.1 Definitions of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Indeterminacy

In this subsection, we consider about Definitions of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Indeter-
minacy.

Definition 4.1 (Partial Locality). (cf. [73]) A proposition 𝐴 ∈ P exhibits partial locality if its truth value is
influenced by its immediate surroundings with a fractional dependency denoted by 𝛼 ∈ [0, 1]. Formally:

𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝛼 · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Clocal ) + (1 − 𝛼) · Residual Effects,

where Clocal is the immediate local context and 𝛼 represents the degree of locality.

Definition 4.2 (Partial Non-Locality). (cf. [73]) A proposition 𝐴 ∈ P exhibits partial non-locality if its truth
value is influenced by distant or separate contexts with a fractional dependency 𝛽 ∈ [0, 1]. Formally:

𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝛽 · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Cnonlocal ) + (1 − 𝛽) · Residual Effects,

where Cnonlocal refers to nonlocal contexts influencing 𝐴, and 𝛽 represents the degree of non-locality.

Definition 4.3 (Partial Indeterminacy). (cf. [73]) A proposition 𝐴 ∈ P exhibits partial indeterminacy if its
truth value includes an indeterminate component 𝛾 ∈ [0, 1] due to hidden variables or ambiguous influences.
Formally:
𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝛾 · 𝐼, 𝐹),
where 𝐼 is the total indeterminacy, and 𝛾 represents the degree of partial indeterminacy.
Remark 4.4. Partial locality, non-locality, and indeterminacy may coexist for a single proposition, forming a
composite influence model:

𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝛼 · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Clocal ) + 𝛽 · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Cnonlocal ) + 𝛾 · 𝐼,

where 𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾 ∈ [0, 1] and 𝛼 + 𝛽 + 𝛾 ≤ 1.

4.2 Theorems and Proofs of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Indeterminacy

In this subsection, we present Some Basic Theorems of artial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Inde-
terminacy.
Theorem 4.5 (Consistency of Partial Locality). If a proposition 𝐴 exhibits partial locality with degree 𝛼, then
the influence from nonlocal contexts diminishes proportionally. Formally:

𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝛼 · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Clocal ) + (1 − 𝛼) · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Cnonlocal ),

where 𝛼 → 1 implies pure locality.

Proof. By definition, 𝛼 scales the influence of Clocal , and 1 − 𝛼 scales the complementary effect from Cnonlocal .
As 𝛼 → 1, the term (1 − 𝛼) · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Cnonlocal ) vanishes, yielding pure locality. □
Theorem 4.6 (Superposition of Influences). The total influence on a proposition 𝐴 can be represented as a
superposition of partial locality, partial non-locality, and partial indeterminacy:

𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝛼 · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Clocal ) + 𝛽 · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Cnonlocal ) + 𝛾 · 𝐼.

Proof. The influence components are orthogonal by construction: Clocal affects 𝐴 directly, Cnonlocal introduces
distant dependencies, and 𝐼 incorporates ambiguity. Thus, the superposition holds. □

8
4.3 Examples of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Indeterminacy

In this subsection, we present Examples of Partial Locality, Partial Non-Locality, and Partial Indeterminacy.
Example 4.7 (Quantum Physics: Aharonov-Bohm Effect). Quantum physics studies the behavior of particles
at atomic and subatomic scales, governed by principles like wave-particle duality and superposition (cf. [8,27]).

Let 𝐴: ”A charged particle is influenced by an electromagnetic potential.”

Local Context Clocal : The particle exists in a region with no magnetic field intensity.

Nonlocal Context Cnonlocal : The electromagnetic potential resides outside the particle’s local region.

𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝛼 · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Clocal ) + 𝛽 · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Cnonlocal ),
where 𝛽 > 0 captures the nonlocal influence of the potential.
Example 4.8 (Ecology: Migratory Birds). Let 𝐵: ”Birds impact the nutrient cycle.”

Local Context Clocal : Birds forage and nest locally.

Nonlocal Context Cnonlocal : Migratory behavior spreads nutrients across ecosystems.

𝑣(𝐵) = 𝛼 · 𝑇 (𝐵, Clocal ) + 𝛽 · 𝑇 (𝐵, Cnonlocal ),

where 𝛽 > 0 quantifies the nonlocal nutrient transfer.

5 New Definition of Local-Neutrosophic Logic and Set

In this section, we introduce a new concept called Local-Neutrosophic Logic and Set. This concept extends
Neutrosophic Logic by incorporating the notion of locality. The definition is provided below.
Definition 5.1 (Local-Neutrosophic Logic). Local-Neutrosophic Logic assigns to each proposition 𝐴 ∈ P a
truth value of the form:

𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹),

where:

• 𝑇 ∈ [0, 1]: Degree of truth.

• 𝐼 ∈ [0, 1]: Degree of indeterminacy.
• 𝐿 ∈ [0, 1]: Degree of locality, representing the influence of immediate contextual or spatial factors.
• 𝐹 ∈ [0, 1]: Degree of falsity.

These components satisfy the constraint:

𝑇 + 𝐼 + 𝐿 + 𝐹 ≤ 1.

Remark 5.2 (Transformation Rules). Transformation Rules of Local-Neutrosophic Logic are following.

• Locality-to-Truth Transformation: When locality 𝐿 provides strong supporting evidence for truth:

𝑣(𝑈 𝐿𝑇 ( 𝐴)) = (𝑇 + 𝐿, 𝐼, 0, 𝐹).

9
 • Locality-to-Falsity Transformation: When locality 𝐿 provides strong evidence against truth:

𝑣(𝑈 𝐿𝐹 ( 𝐴)) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 0, 𝐹 + 𝐿).

• Locality-to-Indeterminacy Transformation: When locality 𝐿 introduces ambiguity or uncertainty:

𝑣(𝑈 𝐿𝐼 ( 𝐴)) = (𝑇, 𝐼 + 𝐿, 0, 𝐹).

• Indeterminacy-to-Locality Transformation: When indeterminacy 𝐼 is clarified by locality 𝐿:

𝑣(𝑈𝐼 𝐿 ( 𝐴)) = (𝑇, 0, 𝐼 + 𝐿, 𝐹).

The definition of the Local-Neutrosophic Set, which extends Local-Neutrosophic Logic to sets, is as follows.
It is anticipated that future research will explore the specific mathematical structures and applications of this
concept.
Definition 5.3 (Local-Neutrosophic Set). Let 𝑋 be a given universe of discourse. A Local-Neutrosophic Set 𝐴
on 𝑋 is characterized by four membership functions:

𝑇𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐼 𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐿 𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐹𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1],

where, for each 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋:

• 𝑇𝐴 (𝑥): The degree of truth of 𝑥 in 𝐴.

• 𝐼 𝐴 (𝑥): The degree of indeterminacy of 𝑥 in 𝐴.

• 𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥): The degree of locality of 𝑥 in 𝐴, representing the influence of immediate spatial, contextual, or
environmental factors.
• 𝐹𝐴 (𝑥): The degree of falsity of 𝑥 in 𝐴.

These membership values satisfy the following constraint:

0 ≤ 𝑇𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐼 𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐹𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 4.

Remark 5.4 (Local-Neutrosophic Set). Compared to other sets:

• A Fuzzy Set has a single membership function, 𝜇 𝐴 (𝑥), representing truth.

• An Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set adds a falsity component, 𝜈 𝐴 (𝑥), to truth.

• A Neutrosophic Set further includes indeterminacy, 𝐼 𝐴 (𝑥).

• The Local-Neutrosophic Set expands these by adding locality (𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥)) to model systems influenced by
contextual factors.

5.1 Basic Theorem of Local-Neutrosophic Logic

We outline several basic theorems of Local-Neutrosophic Logic below.

Theorem 5.5 (Preservation of Total Degree). The total degree of the truth valuation remains invariant under
transformations:
𝑇 + 𝐼 + 𝐿 + 𝐹 = 𝑇 ′ + 𝐼 ′ + 𝐿′ + 𝐹′.

Proof. Each transformation redistributes the components among 𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, and 𝐹, preserving their total sum. □

10
Theorem 5.6 (Superposition of Influences). The truth value of a proposition 𝐴 in Local-Neutrosophic Logic
can be expressed as:
𝑣( 𝐴) = 𝛼 · 𝑇 + 𝛽 · 𝐼 + 𝛾 · 𝐿 + 𝛿 · 𝐹,
where 𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾, 𝛿 ∈ [0, 1] represent the relative weights of each component and 𝛼 + 𝛽 + 𝛾 + 𝛿 = 1.

Proof. The superposition follows directly from the normalized representation of truth valuation components.
□

Theorem 5.7. Local-Neutrosophic Logic extends Neutrosophic Logic by introducing an additional degree
of locality 𝐿, which represents the influence of immediate contextual or spatial factors. Specifically, every
proposition in Neutrosophic Logic can be represented as a special case of Local-Neutrosophic Logic where
𝐿 = 0.

Proof. The truth value in Neutrosophic Logic is defined as:

𝑣 NL ( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐹),

where 𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐹 ∈ [0, 1] and satisfy the constraint:

𝑇 + 𝐼 + 𝐹 ≤ 1.

In Local-Neutrosophic Logic, the truth value is extended to:

𝑣 LNL ( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹),

where 𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹 ∈ [0, 1] and satisfy the constraint:

𝑇 + 𝐼 + 𝐿 + 𝐹 ≤ 1.

If we set 𝐿 = 0 in Local-Neutrosophic Logic, the truth value simplifies to:

𝑣 LNL ( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 0, 𝐹) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐹),

which is identical to the truth value in Neutrosophic Logic. Therefore, every truth value in Neutrosophic Logic
is a valid truth value in Local-Neutrosophic Logic.

The addition of 𝐿 in Local-Neutrosophic Logic allows for the representation of an additional degree of influence
from immediate contextual or spatial factors, which is not captured in Neutrosophic Logic. This makes Local-
Neutrosophic Logic a generalized framework.

The constraint 𝑇 + 𝐼 + 𝐹 ≤ 1 in Neutrosophic Logic is preserved in Local-Neutrosophic Logic because setting

𝐿 = 0 satisfies:
𝑇 + 𝐼 + 𝐿 + 𝐹 ≤ 1.

Local-Neutrosophic Logic reduces to Neutrosophic Logic when 𝐿 = 0, but it also allows for additional flexi-
bility when 𝐿 > 0. Hence, Local-Neutrosophic Logic is a strict extension of Neutrosophic Logic. □
Theorem 5.8. A Local-Neutrosophic Set is an extension of a Neutrosophic Set. Specifically, every Neutrosophic
Set can be represented as a Local-Neutrosophic Set where the degree of locality 𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥) = 0 for all 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋.

Proof. The membership functions of a Neutrosophic Set 𝐴 on 𝑋 are:

𝑇𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐼 𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐹𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1],

with the constraint:

0 ≤ 𝑇𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐼 𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐹𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 3, ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋.

11
For a Local-Neutrosophic Set 𝐴 on 𝑋, the membership functions are extended to include 𝐿 𝐴:

𝑇𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐼 𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐿 𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐹𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1],

with the constraint:

0 ≤ 𝑇𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐼 𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐹𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 4, ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋.

If 𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥) = 0 for all 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋, the membership functions of a Local-Neutrosophic Set reduce to:

𝑇𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐼 𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1], 𝐹𝐴 : 𝑋 → [0, 1],

with the constraint:

0 ≤ 𝑇𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐼 𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐹𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 3, ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋,
which is identical to the structure of a Neutrosophic Set.

The additional component 𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥) in a Local-Neutrosophic Set allows for the representation of an additional
degree of locality, representing the influence of spatial, contextual, or environmental factors. This flexibility
generalizes the concept of Neutrosophic Sets.

For any 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋, the constraint 0 ≤ 𝑇𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐼 𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐹𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 3 in a Neutrosophic Set is preserved in a Local-
Neutrosophic Set when 𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥) = 0, satisfying:

0 ≤ 𝑇𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐼 𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝐹𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 4.

A Local-Neutrosophic Set reduces to a Neutrosophic Set when 𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥) = 0 for all 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋, but it also allows
for additional flexibility when 𝐿 𝐴 (𝑥) > 0. Hence, the Local-Neutrosophic Set is a strict extension of the
Neutrosophic Set. □
Theorem 5.9. Local-Neutrosophic Logic can represent locality, non-locality, and indeterminacy through the
values 𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹 assigned to propositions in the form 𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹), satisfying 𝑇 + 𝐼 + 𝐿 + 𝐹 ≤ 1.
Specifically:

• Locality is captured by 𝐿, representing the influence of immediate surroundings.

• Non-locality is represented by the truth or falsity components 𝑇 and 𝐹, influenced by distant contexts.
• Indeterminacy is represented by 𝐼, capturing the uncertainty or ambiguity.

Proof. Let 𝐴 ∈ P be a proposition evaluated in Local-Neutrosophic Logic with 𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹).

From the definition of locality:

𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹), 𝐿 > 0.
Here, 𝐿 explicitly represents the degree to which 𝐴 is influenced by its immediate surroundings (local context).
If 𝐿 = 0, 𝐴 has no local influence. Thus, locality is embedded within the 𝐿 component.

Non-locality is captured when 𝐿 is small (𝐿 → 0) and the remaining truth (𝑇) or falsity (𝐹) values depend on
distant contexts. Specifically:

𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝛽 · 𝑇 ( 𝐴, Cnonlocal ), 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝛽 · 𝐹 ( 𝐴, Cnonlocal )),

where Cnonlocal represents nonlocal contexts and 𝛽 (0 < 𝛽 ≤ 1) denotes the degree of non-locality. Non-locality
arises when 𝑇 or 𝐹 depends on contexts spatially or conceptually separated from the local context.

Indeterminacy is directly captured by the 𝐼 component in 𝑣( 𝐴). If 𝐼 > 0, there exists a degree of uncertainty
or ambiguity in the truth value of 𝐴. Indeterminacy arises from hidden variables, conflicting evidence, or
incomplete information. Formally:

𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝛾 · 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹), where 𝛾 ∈ [0, 1].

12
Here, 𝛾 controls the contribution of indeterminacy to the overall evaluation.

By definition, Local-Neutrosophic Logic satisfies:

𝑇 + 𝐼 + 𝐿 + 𝐹 ≤ 1.

This constraint ensures that locality, non-locality, and indeterminacy are mathematically consistent and their
contributions to 𝑣( 𝐴) are bounded.

Hence, Local-Neutrosophic Logic effectively represents locality, non-locality, and indeterminacy through the
values 𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹, satisfying the stated constraint. □

5.2 Examples of Local-Neutrosophic Logic in real-life scenarios

In this subsection, we explain examples of Local-Neutrosophic Logic in real-life scenarios.

Example 5.10 (Quantum Physics: Measurement Locality). Quantum physics studies the behavior of particles
at atomic and subatomic scales, governed by principles like wave-particle duality and superposition (cf. [8,27]).

Let 𝐴: ”The spin of a particle is up.”

Truth Components:
𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹) = (0.6, 0.2, 0.1, 0.1),
where:

• 𝑇 = 0.6: Evidence strongly supports the particle’s spin being up.

• 𝐼 = 0.2: Uncertainty due to measurement limitations.
• 𝐿 = 0.1: Local experimental context influences spin alignment.
• 𝐹 = 0.1: Weak evidence against the proposition.
Example 5.11 (Ecology: Pollination Dynamics). Pollination dynamics refers to the interactions between plants
and pollinators, such as bees or birds, facilitating plant reproduction and ecosystem stability (cf. [28]).

Let 𝐵: ”Pollinators improve crop yield in a region.”

Truth Components:
𝑣(𝐵) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹) = (0.7, 0.1, 0.15, 0.05),
where:

• 𝑇 = 0.7: Direct observations confirm significant pollination effects.

• 𝐼 = 0.1: Uncertainty due to unmeasured ecological variables.
• 𝐿 = 0.15: Local interactions between pollinators and plants are notable.
• 𝐹 = 0.05: Minimal evidence contradicts the proposition.
Example 5.12 (Medical Diagnosis(Locality-to-Truth Transformation)). Let 𝐴: ”The patient has a specific viral
infection.”

Initial Truth Value:

𝑣( 𝐴) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹) = (0.5, 0.3, 0.2, 0.0),
where:

• 𝑇 = 0.5: Initial test results partially support the diagnosis.

13
 • 𝐼 = 0.3: Indeterminate due to conflicting symptoms.
• 𝐿 = 0.2: Locality reflects observations by a specialist.
• 𝐹 = 0.0: No evidence against the diagnosis.

Transformation: Given that 𝐿 provides strong supporting evidence (e.g., specialist confirmation), the trans-
formation 𝑈 𝐿𝑇 is applied:

𝑣(𝑈 𝐿𝑇 ( 𝐴)) = (𝑇 + 𝐿, 𝐼, 0, 𝐹) = (0.7, 0.3, 0.0, 0.0).

Interpretation: The patient’s diagnosis is now more likely to be true, as locality strongly supports the proposi-
tion.
Example 5.13 (Weather Prediction(Locality-to-Falsity Transformation)). Let 𝐵: ”It will rain tomorrow.”

Initial Truth Value:

𝑣(𝐵) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹) = (0.4, 0.3, 0.3, 0.0),
where:

• 𝑇 = 0.4: Weak prediction models suggest rain.

• 𝐼 = 0.3: Indeterminacy due to uncertainty in weather models.
• 𝐿 = 0.3: Local observations (e.g., clear skies).

• 𝐹 = 0.0: No significant evidence against rain.

Transformation: Since 𝐿 strongly opposes 𝑇 (e.g., clear skies observed), the transformation 𝑈 𝐿𝐹 is applied:

𝑣(𝑈 𝐿𝐹 (𝐵)) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 0, 𝐹 + 𝐿) = (0.4, 0.3, 0.0, 0.3).

Interpretation: The proposition becomes less likely, as local observations indicate no rain.
Example 5.14 (Ecological Impact(Locality-to-Indeterminacy Transformation)). Let 𝐶: ”Reintroducing wolves
to a forest will improve biodiversity.”

Initial Truth Value:

𝑣(𝐶) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹) = (0.6, 0.2, 0.2, 0.0),
where:

• 𝑇 = 0.6: Prior studies support this outcome.

• 𝐼 = 0.2: Some uncertainty due to unknown ecological factors.

• 𝐿 = 0.2: Local reports suggest potential unintended consequences.

• 𝐹 = 0.0: No evidence contradicting the proposition.

Transformation: Local observations introduce ambiguity, applying 𝑈 𝐿𝐼 :

𝑣(𝑈 𝐿𝐼 (𝐶)) = (𝑇, 𝐼 + 𝐿, 0, 𝐹) = (0.6, 0.4, 0.0, 0.0).

Interpretation: The uncertainty in the proposition increases due to conflicting local data.

14
Example 5.15 (Supply Chain Disruption (Indeterminacy-to-Locality Transformation)). Let 𝐷: ”A factory
shutdown will disrupt global supply chains.”

Initial Truth Value:

𝑣(𝐷) = (𝑇, 𝐼, 𝐿, 𝐹) = (0.5, 0.4, 0.1, 0.0),
where:

• 𝑇 = 0.5: Preliminary analysis suggests a significant impact.

• 𝐼 = 0.4: Indeterminacy due to lack of specific data.
• 𝐿 = 0.1: Localized reports provide clarity on immediate effects.
• 𝐹 = 0.0: No evidence against the proposition.

Transformation: Local evidence reduces indeterminacy, applying 𝑈𝐼 𝐿 :

𝑣(𝑈𝐼 𝐿 (𝐷)) = (𝑇, 0, 𝐼 + 𝐿, 𝐹) = (0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0).

Interpretation: The proposition’s reliance on locality increases as specific data becomes available.

6 Future Tasks of this research

In this section, we consider future tasks of this research.

6.1 Some Extension of Local-Neutrosophic Logic (Open Question)

There is interest in exploring the possibility of extending the above logic using the following set concepts.
Further research in this direction is anticipated.
Question 6.1. Can the logic be extended using the following sets? Additionally, what are the mathematical
characteristics of these extensions, their relationships with other uncertain concepts, and their potential appli-
cations?

• Double-Valued Neutrosophic Sets [35, 38]

• Interval-Valued Neutrosophic Sets [86, 94, 95]
• Plithogenic Sets [25, 66, 67, 79]
• Soft Sets [44, 46]
• Hypersoft Sets [1, 19, 24, 53, 65]
• Neutrosophic Offset [57, 63, 64, 69, 70, 72]

6.2 Neutrosophic Dynamic Systems

A Neutrosophic Dynamic System (NDS) is a generalized framework for modeling systems characterized by
uncertainty, incompleteness, or contradictions. The definition is provided below [71]. There is particular
interest in exploring how the current Local-Neutrosophic Logic can be extended to Neutrosophic Dynamic
Systems.
Definition 6.2 (Neutrosophic Dynamic Systems). [71] Let U be the universe of discourse. A Neutrosophic
Dynamic System is defined as:
D 𝑁 = (Ω, E, R),
where:

15
 • Ω ⊆ U: The neutrosophic space (or state space), representing the elements of the system. It is defined
as:
Ω = {𝑥𝑖 (𝑇𝑖 , 𝐼𝑖 , 𝐹𝑖 ) | 𝑥𝑖 ∈ Ω, 𝑇𝑖 , 𝐼𝑖 , 𝐹𝑖 ∈ [0, 1], 𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, . . . , 𝑛}},
where:
– 𝑇𝑖 : The degree of membership (truth) of 𝑥 𝑖 in Ω.
– 𝐼𝑖 : The degree of indeterminacy (uncertainty) of 𝑥 𝑖 in Ω.
– 𝐹𝑖 : The degree of non-membership (falsity) of 𝑥 𝑖 in Ω.
• E: The set of elements within Ω. Each element 𝑥𝑖 is associated with time-varying neutrosophic degrees
(𝑇𝑖 , 𝐼𝑖 , 𝐹𝑖 ), which evolve over time.
• R: The set of neutrosophic hyperrelationships representing interactions within the system. A neutro-
sophic hyperrelationship is defined as:

R HR : Ω 𝑘 × C(Ω) 𝑙 → P ( [0, 1]),

where:
– R HR (𝑥 𝑖1 , 𝑥 𝑖2 , . . . , 𝑥 𝑖𝑘 , 𝑦 𝑗1 , 𝑦 𝑗2 , . . . , 𝑦 𝑗𝑙 ) = (𝑇R , 𝐼 R , 𝐹R ),
– 𝑇R , 𝐼 R , 𝐹R ∈ [0, 1]: Degrees of truth, indeterminacy, and falsity for the hyperrelationship.
– 𝑘: Number of interacting elements within Ω.
– 𝑙: Number of interacting elements between Ω and C(Ω), the complement of Ω in U.
Definition 6.3 (Open and Closed Neutrosophic Systems). [71]

• A system is closed if 𝑙 = 0, meaning all relationships are confined to Ω.

• A system is open if 𝑙 ≥ 1, allowing interactions between Ω and C(Ω).
Definition 6.4 (Time-Dependent Neutrosophic dynamic system). [71] The neutrosophic dynamic system
evolves over time, with changes occurring in its space, elements, and relationships:

D 𝑁 (𝑡) = (Ω(𝑡), E (𝑡), R (𝑡)).

• Element Dynamics: The degrees of membership, indeterminacy, and non-membership for each element
vary over time:
𝑇𝑖 (𝑡), 𝐼𝑖 (𝑡), 𝐹𝑖 (𝑡),
subject to the constraint:
𝑇𝑖 (𝑡) + 𝐼𝑖 (𝑡) + 𝐹𝑖 (𝑡) ≤ 1, ∀𝑖, ∀𝑡.

• Relationship Dynamics: The hyperrelationships evolve over time, represented as:

R HR (𝑡) = (𝑇R (𝑡), 𝐼 R (𝑡), 𝐹R (𝑡)).

• Space Dynamics: The neutrosophic space Ω may change due to:

– Addition of new elements to Ω.
– Removal of existing elements from Ω.
– Changes in the neutrosophic degrees (𝑇𝑖 , 𝐼𝑖 , 𝐹𝑖 ) of elements within Ω.
Example 6.5 (Ecosystem Dynamics). A biological ecosystem is a community of living organisms interacting
with each other and their environment, including air, water, and soil (cf. [54, 82]).

Consider a biological ecosystem modeled as a neutrosophic dynamic system:

• Ω = {𝑥1 , 𝑥 2 , . . . , 𝑥 𝑛 }: The set of species in the ecosystem, where each species 𝑥𝑖 is characterized by its
neutrosophic attributes (𝑇𝑖 , 𝐼𝑖 , 𝐹𝑖 ).

16
 • 𝑇𝑖 (𝑡): Degree to which species 𝑥 𝑖 is adapted to the environment at time 𝑡. For example, 𝑇𝑖 (𝑡) may increase
if 𝑥𝑖 develops traits that improve survival under current environmental conditions.
• 𝐼𝑖 (𝑡): Degree of uncertainty in species 𝑥𝑖 ’s role or impact in the ecosystem. This reflects incomplete
knowledge about how 𝑥𝑖 interacts with other species or adapts to environmental changes.
• 𝐹𝑖 (𝑡): Degree to which species 𝑥 𝑖 is maladapted or detrimental to the ecosystem. For instance, 𝐹𝑖 (𝑡) may
increase if 𝑥𝑖 contributes to ecosystem imbalance.

The hyperrelationships R HR (𝑥 𝑖1 , 𝑥 𝑖2 , . . . , 𝑥 𝑖𝑘 ) = (𝑇R , 𝐼 R , 𝐹R ) capture the dynamic interactions among species:

• 𝑇R : Degree to which the interaction benefits the ecosystem (e.g., symbiosis).

• 𝐼 R : Degree of indeterminacy in the interaction (e.g., uncertain impact of competition).
• 𝐹R : Degree to which the interaction harms the ecosystem (e.g., predation imbalance).

As the ecosystem evolves, the following dynamics may occur:

• Species 𝑥𝑖 may join or leave Ω due to migration, extinction, or introduction.

• The neutrosophic degrees 𝑇𝑖 (𝑡), 𝐼𝑖 (𝑡), 𝐹𝑖 (𝑡) and hyperrelationship values 𝑇R (𝑡), 𝐼 R (𝑡), 𝐹R (𝑡) change over
time based on environmental conditions, resource availability, and species interactions.
• External influences, such as human intervention or climate change, may alter the system by introducing
new relationships R HR or modifying Ω.

This framework provides a dynamic, nuanced representation of ecosystem behavior, accommodating uncer-
tainty and variability in species interactions.
Example 6.6 (Social Networks). Social networks are structures of individuals or groups connected through
relationships like communication, collaboration, or shared interests, often facilitated by technology(cf. [32, 39,
42]).

Consider a social network modeled as a neutrosophic dynamic system:

• Ω = {𝑥1 , 𝑥 2 , . . . , 𝑥 𝑛 }: The set of individuals in the network, where each individual 𝑥 𝑖 is characterized by
neutrosophic attributes (𝑇𝑖 , 𝐼𝑖 , 𝐹𝑖 ).
• 𝑇𝑖 (𝑡): Degree to which individual 𝑥𝑖 positively contributes to the network at time 𝑡. For instance, 𝑇𝑖 (𝑡)
may increase if 𝑥𝑖 actively collaborates or shares valuable information.
• 𝐼𝑖 (𝑡): Degree of neutrality or indifference of 𝑥 𝑖 in the network. This could reflect an individual’s limited
or ambiguous involvement in network activities.
• 𝐹𝑖 (𝑡): Degree to which 𝑥 𝑖 detracts from the network, such as spreading misinformation or creating con-
flicts.

The hyperrelationships R HR (𝑥 𝑖1 , 𝑥 𝑖2 , . . . , 𝑥 𝑖𝑘 ) = (𝑇R , 𝐼 R , 𝐹R ) represent interactions within the network:

• 𝑇R : Degree to which the interaction enhances network cohesion (e.g., collaborative projects).
• 𝐼 R : Degree of indeterminacy in the interaction (e.g., ambiguous communication).
• 𝐹R : Degree to which the interaction harms the network (e.g., disputes or competitive behavior).

The dynamic behavior of the network includes:

17
 • Addition or removal of individuals (𝑥𝑖 ) to/from Ω, reflecting network growth or attrition.
• Changes in the neutrosophic degrees 𝑇𝑖 (𝑡), 𝐼𝑖 (𝑡), 𝐹𝑖 (𝑡) of individuals based on their evolving roles and
contributions.
• Evolution of hyperrelationships R HR (𝑡) as collaboration patterns, social dynamics, or external influences
(e.g., new policies or technological changes) reshape the network.

This model captures the complexity and variability of social interactions, accommodating the uncertainty and
contradictions inherent in human networks.

Funding
This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments
We humbly extend our heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has provided invaluable support, enabling the suc-
cessful completion of this paper. We also express our sincere appreciation to all readers who have taken the
time to engage with this work. Furthermore, we extend our deepest respect and gratitude to the authors of the
references cited in this paper. Thank you for your significant contributions.

Data Availability
This paper does not involve any data analysis.

Ethical Approval
This article does not involve any research with human participants or animals.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Disclaimer
This study primarily focuses on theoretical aspects, and its application to practical scenarios has not yet been
validated. Future research may involve empirical testing and refinement of the proposed methods. The authors
have made every effort to ensure that all references cited in this paper are accurate and appropriately attributed.
However, unintentional errors or omissions may occur. The authors bear no legal responsibility for inaccuracies
in external sources, and readers are encouraged to verify the information provided in the references indepen-
dently. Furthermore, the interpretations and opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of any affiliated institutions.

References
[1] Mujahid Abbas, Ghulam Murtaza, and Florentin Smarandache. Basic operations on hypersoft sets and
hypersoft point. Infinite Study, 2020.
[2] Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Asmaa Atef, and Florentin Smarandache. A hybrid neutrosophic multiple cri-
teria group decision making approach for project selection. Cognitive Systems Research, 57:216–227,
2019.
[3] Sunday Adesina Adebisi and Said Broumi. Assessing students performance using neutrosophic tool.
Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems, 2:7–18, 2024.

18
 [4] Ather Abdulrahman Ageeli. A neutrosophic decision-making methods of the key aspects for supply chain
management in international business administrations. International Journal of Neutrosophic Science,
23(1):155–167, 2023.
[5] Qeethara Al-Shayea. Artificial neural networks in medical diagnosis. International Journal of Research
Publication and Reviews, 2024.
[6] Salah Hasan Saleh Al-Subhi, Iliana Pérez Pupo, Roberto García Vacacela, Pedro Y Piñero Pérez, and
Maikel Y Leyva Vázquez. A new neutrosophic cognitive map with neutrosophic sets on connections,
application in project management. Infinite Study, 2018.
[7] Kathryn M Andolsek. Improving the medical student performance evaluation to facilitate resident selec-
tion. Academic Medicine, 91:1475–1479, 2016.
[8] Karen Barad. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and mean-
ing. 2007.
[9] Said Broumi, Irfan Deli, and Florentin Smarandache. N-valued interval neutrosophic sets and their appli-
cation in medical diagnosis. Critical Review, Center for Mathematics of Uncertainty, Creighton Univer-
sity, Omaha, NE, USA, 10:45–69, 2015.
[10] Humberto Bustince and P Burillo. Vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and systems,
79(3):403–405, 1996.
[11] Jia Syuen Chai, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Florentin Smarandache, Vassilis C Gerogiannis, Le Hoang
Son, Quang-Thinh Bui, and Bay Vo. New similarity measures for single-valued neutrosophic sets with ap-
plications in pattern recognition and medical diagnosis problems. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 7:703–
723, 2021.
[12] Irving M Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon. Introduction to logic. Routledge, 2016.
[13] Irfan Deli, Said Broumi, and Florentin Smarandache. On neutrosophic refined sets and their applications
in medical diagnosis. Journal of new theory, (6):88–98, 2015.
[14] Barkha Dhingra, Shallu Batra, Vaibhav Aggarwal, Mahender Yadav, and Pankaj Kumar. Stock market
volatility: a systematic review. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2023.
[15] William R. Duncan. A guide to the project management body of knowledge. 1996.
[16] Ronald C. Freiwald. An introduction to set theory and topology. 2014.
[17] Takaaki Fujita. Breaking down barriers: Proposals for overcoming challenges in student project manage-
ment. European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies, 2023.
[18] Takaaki Fujita. A consideration of project-based learning: Exploring its potential, effects, challenges, and
best practices. European Journal of Education Studies, 10(3), 2023.
[19] Takaaki Fujita. Note for hypersoft filter and fuzzy hypersoft filter. Multicriteria Algorithms With Appli-
cations, 5:32–51, 2024.
[20] Takaaki Fujita. Note for neutrosophic incidence and threshold graph. SciNexuses, 1:97–125, 2024.
[21] Takaaki Fujita. Advancing Uncertain Combinatorics through Graphization, Hyperization, and Uncer-
tainization: Fuzzy, Neutrosophic, Soft, Rough, and Beyond. Biblio Publishing, 2025.
[22] Takaaki Fujita. A comprehensive discussion on fuzzy hypersoft expert, superhypersoft, and indetermsoft
graphs. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 77:241–263, 2025.
[23] Takaaki Fujita and Florentin Smarandache. Antipodal turiyam neutrosophic graphs. Neutrosophic Opti-
mization and Intelligent Systems, 5:1–13, 2024.
[24] Takaaki Fujita and Florentin Smarandache. A short note for hypersoft rough graphs. HyperSoft Set
Methods in Engineering, 3:1–25, 2024.
[25] Takaaki Fujita and Florentin Smarandache. Study for general plithogenic soft expert graphs. Plithogenic
Logic and Computation, 2:107–121, 2024.

19
[26] Takaaki Fujita and Florentin Smarandache. Uncertain automata and uncertain graph grammar. Neutro-
sophic Sets and Systems, 74:128–191, 2024.
[27] Thierry Giamarchi. Quantum physics in one dimension. 2004.
[28] Adam S. Hadley and Matthew G. Betts. The effects of landscape fragmentation on pollination dynamics:
absence of evidence not evidence of absence. Biological Reviews, 87, 2012.
[29] Michael A Harrison. Introduction to formal language theory. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co.,
Inc., 1978.
[30] Felix Hausdorff. Set theory, volume 119. American Mathematical Soc., 2021.

[31] Ryszard Horodecki, Pawe Horodecki, Micha Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki. Quantum entanglement.
2007.
[32] Naeem Jan, Tahir Mahmood, Lemnaouar Zedam, Kifayat Ullah, José Carlos Rodríguez Alcantud, and
Bijan Davvaz. Analysis of social networks, communication networks and shortest path problems in the
environment of interval-valued q-rung ortho pair fuzzy graphs. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems,
21:1687–1708, 2019.
[33] Thomas Jech. Set theory: The third millennium edition, revised and expanded. Springer, 2003.
[34] Roberto Carlos Jiménez Martínez, César Elías Paucar Paucar, José Ignacio Cruz Arboleda, Miguel Ángel
Guambo Llerena, and Erick González Caballero. Neutrosophic matrix games to solve project management
conflicts. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 44(1):2, 2021.

[35] Ilanthenral Kandasamy. Double-valued neutrosophic sets, their minimum spanning trees, and clustering
algorithm. Journal of Intelligent systems, 27(2):163–182, 2018.
[36] V. Ganesh Karthikeyan, P. Thangaraj, and S. Karthik. Towards developing hybrid educational data mining
model (hedm) for efficient and accurate student performance evaluation. Soft Computing, 24:18477 –
18487, 2020.

[37] Richard Kaye. Models of Peano Arithmetic. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991.
[38] Qaisar Khan, Peide Liu, and Tahir Mahmood. Some generalized dice measures for double-valued neutro-
sophic sets and their applications. Mathematics, 6(7):121, 2018.
[39] László T. Kóczy, Naeem Jan, Tahir Mahmood, and Kifayat Ullah. Analysis of social networks and wi-fi
networks by using the concept of picture fuzzy graphs. Soft Computing, 24:16551 – 16563, 2020.
[40] Azriel Levy. Basic set theory. Courier Corporation, 2012.
[41] Fang Liu, Muhammad Umair, and Junjun Gao. Assessing oil price volatility co-movement with stock
market volatility through quantile regression approach. Resources Policy, 2023.

[42] Rupkumar Mahapatra, Sovan Samanta, Madhumangal Pal, Tofigh Allahviranloo, and Antonios Kalam-
pakas. A study on linguistic z-graph and its application in social networks. Mathematics, 12(18):2898,
2024.
[43] Tahir Mahmood, Kifayat Ullah, Qaisar Khan, and Naeem Jan. An approach toward decision-making and
medical diagnosis problems using the concept of spherical fuzzy sets. Neural Computing and Applica-
tions, pages 1–13, 2019.
[44] Pradip Kumar Maji, Ranjit Biswas, and A Ranjan Roy. Soft set theory. Computers & mathematics with
applications, 45(4-5):555–562, 2003.
[45] Mai Mohamed, Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Abdel-Nasser Hussien, and Florentin Smarandache. Using neu-
trosophic sets to obtain pert three-times estimates in project management. Infinite Study, 2017.

[46] Dmitriy Molodtsov. Soft set theory-first results. Computers & mathematics with applications, 37(4-
5):19–31, 1999.

20
[47] S Narasimman, M Shanmugapriya, R Sundareswaran, Laxmi Rathour, Lakshmi Narayan Mishra, Vinita
Dewangan, and Vishnu Narayan Mishra. Identification of influential factors affecting student performance
in semester examinations in the educational institution using score topological indices in single valued
neutrosophic graphs. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 75:224–240, 2025.
[48] Wendy Olsen and Hisako Nomura. Poverty reduction: fuzzy sets vs. crisp sets compared. Sociological
Theory and Methods, 24(2):219–246, 2009.
[49] Stefano Crespi Reghizzi, Luca Breveglieri, and Angelo Morzenti. Formal languages and compilation.
Springer, 2013.
[50] Ariel Romero Fernández, Lourdes Viviana Moreira Rosales, Olga Germania Arciniegas Paspuel, Wal-
ter Bolívar Jarrín López, and Anthony Rafael Sotolongo León. Neutrosophic statistics for project man-
agement. application to a computer system project. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 44(1):34, 2021.
[51] Azriel Rosenfeld. Fuzzy graphs. In Fuzzy sets and their applications to cognitive and decision processes,
pages 77–95. Elsevier, 1975.
[52] Myriam Paulina Barreno Sánchez, Miriam Pantoja Burbano, and Sary Alvarez Hernández. Neutrosophic
insights into strategic decision-making: Navigating complexity in ecuadorian business management. Neu-
trosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems, 1:46–56, 2024.
[53] P Sathya, Nivetha Martin, and Florentine Smarandache. Plithogenic forest hypersoft sets in plithogenic
contradiction based multi-criteria decision making. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 73:668–693, 2024.
[54] Corinna Schrum, Irina Alekseeva, and Mike St John. Development of a coupled physical–biological
ecosystem model ecosmo: part i: model description and validation for the north sea. Journal of Marine
Systems, 61(1-2):79–99, 2006.
[55] Gulfam Shahzadi, Muhammad Akram, Arsham Borumand Saeid, et al. An application of single-valued
neutrosophic sets in medical diagnosis. Neutrosophic sets and systems, 18:80–88, 2017.

[56] Ahmed Mohamed Shitaya, Mohamed El Syed Wahed, Amr Ismail, Mahmoud Y Shams, AA Salama, et al.
Predicting student behavior using a neutrosophic deep learning model. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems,
76:288–310, 2025.
[57] Florentin Smarandache. Neutrosophic overset, neutrosophic underset, and neutrosophic offset. similarly
for neutrosophic over-/under-/offlogic, probability, and statisticsneutrosophic, pons editions brussels, 170
pages book, 2016.

[58] Florentin Smarandache. A unifying field in logics: Neutrosophic logic. In Philosophy, pages 1–141.
American Research Press, 1999.
[59] Florentin Smarandache. Neutrosophic set-a generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set. International
journal of pure and applied mathematics, 24(3):287, 2005.

[60] Florentin Smarandache. A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set,
neutrosophic probability: neutrsophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability.
Infinite Study, 2005.
[61] Florentin Smarandache. Neutrosophic set–a generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set. Journal of
Defense Resources Management (JoDRM), 1(1):107–116, 2010.

[62] Florentin Smarandache. n-valued refined neutrosophic logic and its applications to physics. Infinite study,
4:143–146, 2013.
[63] Florentin Smarandache. Degrees of membership> 1 and< 0 of the elements with respect to a neutrosophic
offset. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 12:3–8, 2016.

[64] Florentin Smarandache. Neutrosophic Overset, Neutrosophic Underset, and Neutrosophic Offset. Simi-
larly for Neutrosophic Over-/Under-/Off-Logic, Probability, and Statistics. Infinite Study, 2016.
[65] Florentin Smarandache. Extension of soft set to hypersoft set, and then to plithogenic hypersoft set.
Neutrosophic sets and systems, 22(1):168–170, 2018.

21
[66] Florentin Smarandache. Plithogenic set, an extension of crisp, fuzzy, intuitionistic fuzzy, and neutrosophic
sets-revisited. Infinite study, 2018.
[67] Florentin Smarandache. Plithogeny, plithogenic set, logic, probability, and statistics. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1808.03948, 2018.

[68] Florentin Smarandache. Extended nonstandard neutrosophic logic, set, and probability based on extended
nonstandard analysis. Symmetry, 11(4):515, 2019.
[69] Florentin Smarandache. Practical Applications of the Independent Neutrosophic Components and of the
Neutrosophic Offset Components. Infinite Study, 2021.
[70] Florentin Smarandache. Interval-valued neutrosophic oversets, neutrosophic undersets, and neutrosophic
offsets. Collected Papers. Volume IX: On Neutrosophic Theory and Its Applications in Algebra, page 117,
2022.
[71] Florentin Smarandache. Neutrosophic systems and neutrosophic dynamic systems. Collected Papers.
Volume VIII: On Neutrosophic Theory and Applications, page 50, 2022.
[72] Florentin Smarandache. Operators on single-valued neutrosophic oversets, neutrosophic undersets, and
neutrosophic offsets. Collected Papers, 9:112, 2022.
[73] Florentin Smarandache. The principles of (partial locality, partial indeterminacy, partial nonlocality) and
(multi locality, multi indeterminacy, multi nonlocality). Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 72(1):12, 2024.
[74] Florentin Smarandache. Upside-Down Logics: Falsification of the Truth and Truthification of the False.
Infinite Study, 2024.
[75] Florentin Smarandache. Short introduction to standard and nonstandard neutrosophic set and logic (review
paper). Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 77, 2025. Review Paper.
[76] Florentin Smarandache and NM Gallup. Generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set to the neutrosophic
set. In International Conference on Granular Computing, pages 8–42. Citeseer, 2006.

[77] Florentin Smarandache and Maissam Jdid. An overview of neutrosophic and plithogenic theories and
applications. 2023.
[78] Florentin Smarandache, WB Kandasamy, and K Ilanthenral. Applications of bimatrices to some fuzzy
and neutrosophic models. 2005.

[79] Florentin Smarandache and Nivetha Martin. Plithogenic n-super hypergraph in novel multi-attribute
decision making. Infinite Study, 2020.
[80] Ieee Std. Ieee guide adoption of pmi standard a guide to the project management body of knowledge.
2004.

[81] Patrick Suppes. Introduction to logic. Courier Corporation, 2012.

[82] Masaharu Tsujimoto, Yuya Kajikawa, Junichi Tomita, and Yoichi Matsumoto. A review of the ecosystem
concept-towards coherent ecosystem design. Technological forecasting and social change, 136:49–58,
2018.
[83] Zach Weber. Transfinite numbers in paraconsistent set theory. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 3:71 – 92,
2010.
[84] Zach Weber. Transfinite cardinals in paraconsistent set theory. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 5:269 –
293, 2012.
[85] Shengjun Wu and Jeeva S. Anandan. What is quantum entanglement. 2003.

[86] Jun Ye and Shigui Du. Some distances, similarity and entropy measures for interval-valued neutrosophic
sets and their relationship. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 10:347 – 355,
2017.
[87] Lotfi A Zadeh. Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8(3):338–353, 1965.

22
 [88] Lotfi A Zadeh. Fuzzy sets versus probability. Proceedings of the IEEE, 68(3):421–421, 1980.
[89] Lotfi A. Zadeh. Fuzzy logic = computing with words. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 4:103–111, 1996.
[90] Lotfi A Zadeh. Fuzzy logic, neural networks, and soft computing. In Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy
systems: selected papers by Lotfi A Zadeh, pages 775–782. World Scientific, 1996.

[91] Lotfi A Zadeh. Fuzzy sets and information granularity. In Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy systems:
selected papers by Lotfi A Zadeh, pages 433–448. World Scientific, 1996.
[92] Lotfi A Zadeh. A note on prototype theory and fuzzy sets. In Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy systems:
Selected papers by Lotfi A Zadeh, pages 587–593. World Scientific, 1996.

[93] Lotfi Asker Zadeh. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy sets and systems, 1(1):3–28,
1978.
[94] Hongyu Zhang, Jian qiang Wang, and Xiao hong Chen. An outranking approach for multi-criteria
decision-making problems with interval-valued neutrosophic sets. Neural Computing and Applications,
27:615 – 627, 2015.

[95] Hongyu Zhang, Jianqiang Wang, and Xiaohong Chen. An outranking approach for multi-criteria decision-
making problems with interval-valued neutrosophic sets. Neural Computing and Applications, 27:615–
627, 2016.
[96] Qian-Sheng Zhang and Sheng-Yi Jiang. A note on information entropy measures for vague sets and its
applications. Information Sciences, 178(21):4184–4191, 2008.

23

View publication stats