SuperHyperGirth On SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer's Recognitions

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/366545235
SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer's Recognitions
Preprint · December 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
185 PUBLICATIONS 266 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
On Fuzzy Logic View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 23 December 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s
Recognitions
Henry Garrett
Independent Researcher
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c
Abstract
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely,
SuperHyperGirth and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. Two different types of
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing
research. The “Cancer’s Recognitions” are the under research to figure out the
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up.
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s
Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some
avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues
are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some
questions and some problems. A SuperHyperGraph has SuperHyperGirth where it’s the
longest SuperHyperCycle. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to
introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on SuperHyperGirth.
It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the
kind of SuperHyperClass. This SuperHyperClass is officially called
“SuperHyperFlower”. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperCycles until the
SuperHyperGirth, then it’s officially called “SuperHyperOrder” but otherwise, it isn’t
SuperHyperOrder. There are two instances about the clarifications for the main
definition titled “SuperHyperGirth”. These two examples get more scrutiny and
discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the
SuperHyperClass based on SuperHyperGirth and they’re called “SuperHyperFlower.”
For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, there’s a need to “redefine” the
notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the
1/35
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the
intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses.
Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus
SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite,
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”,
“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth” where it’s the strongest [the maximum value from all
SuperHyperCycles amid the minimum value amid all SuperHyperEdges from a
SuperHyperCycle.] SuperHyperCycle. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same.
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has
one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes
the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially
called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy,
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case
the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and the results and the definitions will be
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function.
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy,
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done.
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and
some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite,
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest
SuperHyperCycle or the strongest SuperHyperCycle in those neutrosophic
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperCycle, called SuperHyperGirth, and the
strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, some general results
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have
2/35
only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It,
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph
theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.
Keywords: (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGirth,

Cancer’s Treatments
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45
1 Background
There are some studies covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are
some discussion and literature reviews about them.
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring,
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path,
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number,
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number,
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth,
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the
majority of notions.
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14.
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results
based on initial background.
In some articles are titled “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study
Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic
Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett (2022),
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s
Treatments” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett
3/35
(2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph.
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in
Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more
than 2225 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights,
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory.
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more
than 2922 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami,
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set,
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd.
1.1 Motivation and Contributions

In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices”
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Sometimes, the situations get
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells,
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are
formally called “SuperHyperCycle” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background
4/35
for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function.
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy,
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done.
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and
some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite,
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest
SuperHyperCycle or the strongest SuperHyperCycle in those neutrosophic
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperCycle, called SuperHyperGirth, and the
strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, some general results
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have
only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It,
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form.
Question 1.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to

find the “cyclic amount” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells based on the
fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “cyclic amount” based on the fixed
groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells?
Question 1.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognitions” in terms
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated?
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of
“SuperHyperGirth” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” on “SuperHyperGraph” and
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to
define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion
with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to
make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some
results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research,
“Cancer’s Recognitions”, more understandable and more clear.
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperGirth and
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, are figured out in sections “SuperHyperGirth” and
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order
to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences,
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section,
titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks,
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on
5/35
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”,
“SuperHyperGirth”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses”
and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about
what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this
research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for
this research as presented in section, “SuperHyperGirth”. The keyword of this research
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions” with two cases and
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style.
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”.
1.2 Preliminaries
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also,
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited.
Definition 1.3 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [2],Definition 2.1,p.87).
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x; then
the neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of
+
]− 0, 1 [.
Definition 1.4 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [13],Definition 6,p.2).
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A
single valued neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by truth-membership
function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a falsity-membership
function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be
written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 1.5. The degree of truth-membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
6/35
Definition 1.6. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 1.7 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [12],Definition

3,p.291).
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an
ordered pair S = (V, E), where
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ;

(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i =
1, 2, . . . , n);
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ;
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 =
1, 2, . . . , n0 );
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );

P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,
IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

and FV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[FV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0
where i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 .
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ),
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V.
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus,
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets.
Definition 1.8 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).
(Ref. [12],Section 4,pp.291-292).
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E)
could be characterized as follow-up items.
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex;

(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex;
7/35
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge;
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called
HyperEdge;
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called
SuperEdge;
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called
SuperHyperEdge.
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG).
Definition 1.9 (t-norm). (Ref. [11], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83).
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]:
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x;
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x;
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z;
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z.
Definition 1.10. The degree of truth-membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with
respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 1.11. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 1.12. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).

Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an
ordered pair S = (V, E), where
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ;
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i =
1, 2, . . . , n);
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ;
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 =
1, 2, . . . , n0 );
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
8/35
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ).
P
(viii) i0
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ),
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V.
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus,
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets.
Definition 1.13 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).
(Ref. [12],Section 4,pp.291-292).
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E)
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex;
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex;
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge;
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called
HyperEdge;
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called
SuperEdge;
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called
SuperHyperEdge.
2 SuperHyperGirth
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have some
restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities.
Definition 2.1. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same.
To get more visions on SuperHyperGirth, the some SuperHyperClasses are
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperGirth more understandable.
Definition 2.2. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some
SuperHyperClasses as follows.
(i). It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions;
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two
given SuperHyperEdges;
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all
SuperHyperEdges;
9/35
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has
no SuperHyperEdge in common;
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets,
has no SuperHyperEdge in common;
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any
common SuperVertex.
Definition 2.3. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
(NSHG) S. Then a sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either
of following conditions hold:
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1
0
∈ Vi+1 such that
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 .
Definition 2.4. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths).
A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,

(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path;
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath;
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath;
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called SuperHyperPath.
Definition 2.5. A SuperHyperGraph has SuperHyperGirth where it’s the longest
SuperHyperCycle.
10/35
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and Super-
HyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, is called “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperFlower”, Mentioned in the Example (2.7)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The Minimum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The Minimum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The Minimum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The Minimum Values of Its Endpoints
To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next
SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on SuperHyperGirth. It’s the main. It’ll
be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of
SuperHyperClass. This SuperHyperClass is officially called “SuperHyperFlower”. If
there’s a need to have all SuperHyperCycles until the SuperHyperGirth, then it’s
officially called “SuperHyperOrder” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperOrder.
Definition 2.6. A graph is called SuperHyperFlower if it’s SuperHyperGraph and
there are too many SuperHyperCycles having only one SuperHyperVertex in common
and beyond that, there are only some components, namely some SuperHyperCycle, for
this disconnected SuperHyperGraph. If there are all SuperHyperCycles until the
SuperHyperGirth, then it’s officially called “SuperHyperOrder” but otherwise, it
isn’t SuperHyperOrder.
In the upcoming section, there are two instances about the clarifications for the
main definition titled “SuperHyperGirth”. These two examples get more scrutiny and
discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the
The first instance is to clarify by applying the SuperHyperProper of the
SuperHyperFlower.
Example 2.7. A SuperHyperGraph, is called “SuperHyperFlower”, is depicted in the
Figure (1). The characterization of SuperHyperGirth is as follows. There are all
SuperHyperCycles until the SuperHyperGirth, six, then it’s officially called
“SuperHyperOrder”. The SuperHyperCycles from any SuperHyperLength aren’t
unique. If there’s an acceptance on neglecting the SuperHyperCycle from any
SuperHyperLength four, then the SuperHyperGraph, is called “SuperHyperFlower”, is
depicted in the Figure (1), is SuperHyperOrder.
SuperHyperCycleSHC1 : V11 , U5 , V2 , V11

SuperHyperCycleSHC2 : V11 , V3 , V4 , H7 , R9 , V11
SuperHyperCycleSHC3 : V11 , V6 , V7 , V8 , C9 , S9 , V11
SuperHyperCycleSHC4 : V11 , K9 , Q4 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 , V11
By using the Figure (1), and the Table (1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, is
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperFlower”, is obtained and the computations are
straightforward to make sense about what’s figured out on determinacy, indeterminacy
and neutrality.
The second example is to elicit where the SuperHyperFlower isn’t
SuperHyperProper.
11/35
Figure 1. A SuperHyperGraph, is called “SuperHyperFlower”, Associated to the
Notions of SuperHyperGirth in the Example (2.7)


unique. The SuperHyperGraph, is called “SuperHyperFlower”, is depicted in the Figure
(2), isn’t SuperHyperOrder since the SuperHyperCycle from the SuperHyperLength four
isn’t existed.
SuperHyperCycleSHC1 : V11 , U5 , V2 , V11

SuperHyperCycleSHC2 : V11 , V3 , V4 , H7 , R9 , V11
SuperHyperCycleSHC3 : V11 , V6 , V7 , V8 , C9 , S9 , V11
SuperHyperCycleSHC4 : V11 , K9 , Q4 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 , V11
and neutrality.
3 Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth
For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, there’s a need to “redefine” the
notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values.
12/35
Table 3. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.1)
Definition 3.1. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (3) holds.
It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more
ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth more
understandable.
Definition 3.2. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (4) holds. Thus SuperHyperPath,
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and
SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, neutrosophic
SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (4) holds.
Definition 3.3. A SuperHyperGraph has neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth where
it’s the strongest [the maximum value from all SuperHyperCycles amid the minimum
value amid all SuperHyperEdges from a SuperHyperCycle.] SuperHyperCycle.
To get structural examples and instances, I’ve introduced the next SuperHyperClass
of SuperHyperGraph based on SuperHyperGirth. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to
have the foundation of that definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. This
SuperHyperClass is officially called “SuperHyperFlower”. If there’s a need to have all
13/35
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.2)
SuperHyperCycles until the SuperHyperGirth, then it’s officially called

“SuperHyperOrder” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperOrder.
In the upcoming section, there are two instances about the clarifications for the
main definition titled “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. These two examples get more
scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the
The first instance is to clarify by applying the SuperHyperProper of the
SuperHyperFlower.
depicted in the Figure (3), is SuperHyperOrder. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth
from the component are illustrated as follows. It’s interesting to mention that the last
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth from the maximum length is the neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth for the SuperHyperFlower. It’s completely different from the Example
(2.7). It’s beyond the Example (2.7), and faraway from the Example (2.7).
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SHC1 : V11 , V1 , V2 , V11

SuperHyperGirth SHC1 : V11 , U5 , V2 , V11
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SHC2 : V11 , V3 , V4 , H7 , R9 , V11
SuperHyperGirth SHC2 : V11 , V3 , V4 , H7 , R9 , V11
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SHC3 : V11 , V6 , V7 , V8 , C9 , S9 , V11
SuperHyperGirth SHC3 : V11 , V6 , V7 , V8 , C9 , S9 , V11
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SHC4 : V11 , K9 , Q4 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 , V11
SuperHyperGirth SHC4 : V11 , K9 , Q4 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 , V11
and neutrality.
The second example is to elicit where the SuperHyperFlower isn’t
SuperHyperProper.
14/35

15/35


depicted in the Figure (4), is SuperHyperOrder. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth
from the component are illustrated as follows. It’s interesting to mention that the last
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth from the maximum length is the neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth for the SuperHyperFlower. It’s completely different from the Example
(2.8). It’s beyond the Example (2.8), and faraway from the Example (2.8).
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SHC1 : V11 , V1 , V2 , V11

SuperHyperGirth SHC1 : V11 , U5 , V2 , V11
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SHC2 : V11 , V3 , V4 , H7 , R9 , V11
SuperHyperGirth SHC2 : V11 , V3 , V4 , H7 , R9 , V11
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SHC3 : V11 , V6 , V7 , V8 , C9 , S9 , V11
SuperHyperGirth SHC3 : V11 , V6 , V7 , V8 , C9 , S9 , V11
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SHC4 : V11 , K9 , Q4 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 , V11
SuperHyperGirth SHC4 : V11 , K9 , Q4 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 , V11
and neutrality.
16/35
Figure 5. A SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth in the
Example (4.2)
4 Results on SuperHyperClasses
Proposition 4.1. Assume a SuperHyperPath. Then SuperHyperGirth isn’t
well-defined.
Proof. Assume a SuperHyperPath. There’s a sequence of the SuperHyperVertices and
the SuperHyperEdges but this consecutive sequence, even with having all the
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges, doesn’t find any SuperHyperEdge more
to back to a SuperHyperVertex. Thus there’s only an unique SuperHyperPath but
there’s no SuperHyperCycle implies there’s no longest SuperHyperCycle induces there’s
no SuperHyperGirth. Assume the SuperHyperPath has t the SuperHyperEdges. Then
all the longest SuperHyperPaths are below.
IE1 , E1 , EE1 ∩E2 , E2 , EE2 ∩E3 , . . . , Et−2 , EEt−2 ∩Et−1 , Et−1 , EEt−1 ∩Et , Et .
where IEi is one of the interior SuperHyperVertex from the SuperHyperEdges Ei and
EEi is one of the exterior SuperHyperVertex from the SuperHyperEdges Ei . All
SuperHyperEdges are used but there’s no repetition of any SuperHyperVertices. Then
SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined.
Example 4.2. In the Figure (5), the SuperHyperPath is highlighted and featured. The
consecutive sequence,
V25 , E1 , V1 , E2 , V2 , E3 , V6 , E4 , V10 , E5 , V17 , E6 , V22 ,
is a SuperHyperPath but there’s no more distinct SuperHyperEdge to be back to any of

the SuperHyperVertices in the mentioned consecutive sequence. This event could be
happened to any of arbitrary consecutive sequence which is chosen from the intended
SuperHyperPath in the Figure (5). Let us gather all the longest SuperHyperPaths but
17/35
not SuperHyperGirths as follows.
(−/V1 /V24 /V26 /V23 /V29 /V28 /V27 )V25 ,

E1 , (−/V23 )V1 , E2 , V2 , E3 , V6 , E4 , (−/V8 /V9 /V15 )V10 ,
E5 , (−/V15 )V17 , E6 , (−/V15 /V17 /V19 /V18 /V21 /V20 )V22 .
It’s some interesting to note that it’s fantasized to have one SuperHyperCycle when
we’re talking about the SuperHyperCycle. It’s happened.
Proposition 4.3. Assume a SuperHyperCycle. Then SuperHyperGirth is counted the
number of exterior SuperHyperVertices, and its SuperHyperLength is the
SuperHyperOrder.
Proof. Assume a SuperHyperCycle. There’s only the number of exterior
SuperHyperVertices sequences of the SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges
and these consecutive sequences, even with having all the SuperHyperVertices and the
SuperHyperEdges, find only one SuperHyperEdge and not more to back to an initial
SuperHyperVertex. Thus there are only the number of exterior SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperCycles and there’s no SuperHyperCycle more that that imply there are only
the number of exterior SuperHyperVertices longest SuperHyperCycles induce there are
only the number of exterior SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperGirths. Assume the
SuperHyperCycle has t the SuperHyperEdges. Then all the longest SuperHyperCycles
and all the SuperHyperGirths are below.
EEi−1 ∩Ei , Ei , EEi ∩Ei+1 , Ei+1 , EEi+1 ∩Ei+2 , . . . , Ei+t , EEi+t ∩Ei+t , Et , EEi−1 ∩Ei
where EEi is one of the exterior SuperHyperVertex from the SuperHyperEdges Ei . All
SuperHyperEdges are used but there’s only one repetition of any SuperHyperVertices in
the initial position and the last position. Then SuperHyperGirth is counted the number
of exterior SuperHyperVertices, and its SuperHyperLength is the SuperHyperOrder.
Example 4.4. In the Figure (6), the SuperHyperCycle is highlighted and featured.
The consecutive sequence,
V25 , E1 , V1 , E2 , V2 , E3 , V6 , E4 , V10 , E5 , V17 , E6 , V22 ,
is a SuperHyperCycle but there’s only one distinct SuperHyperEdge to be back to any

of the SuperHyperVertices in the mentioned consecutive sequence in the form of initial
SuperHyperVertex. This event could be happened to any of arbitrary consecutive
sequence which is chosen from the intended SuperHyperCycle in the Figure (6). All
SuperHyperEdges are used but there’s only one repetition of any SuperHyperVertices in
the initial position and the last position. Let us gather all the longest
SuperHyperCycles and the SuperHyperGirths as it’s illustrated in the Figure (6) where
the consecutive sequences are clear.
Proposition 4.5. Assume a SuperHyperStar. Then SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined.
Proof. Assume a SuperHyperStar. There’s only SuperHyperOrder minus one sequences
of the SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges and these consecutive sequences,
even with having not all the SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges, doesn’t
find any SuperHyperEdge to back to an initial SuperHyperVertex. Thus there are only
SuperHyperOrder minus one SuperHyperPaths and there’s no SuperHyperPaths more
that that imply there’s not any longest SuperHyperCycle induces there’s no
SuperHyperGirth. All the longest SuperHyperPaths and not any SuperHyperGirths are
below.
EEi , Ei , CHV, Ej , EEj
18/35
Figure 6. A SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth in the
Example (4.4)
where EEi is one of the Non-SuperHyperCenter from the SuperHyperEdges Ei and

CHV is the SuperHyperCenter. All SuperHyperEdges aren’t used but there’s not any
repetitions of any SuperHyperVertices in the initial position and the last position. Then
SuperHyperGirth is counted zero, and it has no SuperHyperLength. Beyond that, all
possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since
it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a
SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but Literarily, it’s
the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form.
Then SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined.
Example 4.6. In the Figure (7), the SuperHyperStar is highlighted and featured. The
{P2 , S2 , R2 , T2 , O2 }, E1 , V1 , E2 , {Z4 , W4 , V4 , E5 , C5 , D5 },
is a SuperHyperPath but there’s no distinct SuperHyperEdge to be back to the

SuperHyperVertex {P2 , S2 , R2 , T2 , O2 }. This event could be happened to any of
arbitrary consecutive sequence which is chosen from the intended SuperHyperStar in
the Figure (7). All SuperHyperEdges aren’t used but there’s no repetition of any
SuperHyperVertices in the initial position and the last position. Let us gather all the
longest SuperHyperPath but not the SuperHyperGirths as it’s illustrated in the Figure
(7) where the consecutive sequences are clear by the naming the SuperHyperCenter, V1 ,
and two distinct SuperHyperVertices are chosen from the distinct SuperHyperEdges.
All possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since
it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a
SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but Literarily, it’s
the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form.
Then SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined.
Proposition 4.7. Assume a SuperHyperBipartite. Then SuperHyperGirth has all the
consecutive exterior SuperHyperVertices from different parts. Thus the
19/35
Figure 7. A SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth in the
Example (4.6)
SuperHyperGirth’s SuperHyperLength is the minimum cardinality amid parts of

SuperHyperVertices.
Proof. Assume a SuperHyperBipartite. The longest SuperHyperCycles and the
SuperHyperGirths are V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vmin{|P1 |,|P2 |} , Er , V1 where the even indexes
indicate the same part and with analogous to that, the odd indexes demonstrate the
same part. Then SuperHyperGirth has all the consecutive exterior SuperHyperVertices
from different parts. Thus the SuperHyperGirth’s SuperHyperLength is the minimum
cardinality amid parts of SuperHyperVertices.
Example 4.8. In the Figure (8), the SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted and featured.
The set of the SuperHyperParts is
{{V1 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 , V5 }}.
The two consecutive sequences,
V1 (−/V2 ), E2 (−/E1 ), V3 , E1 (−/E2 ), V2 (−/V1 ), E3 (−/E4 ), V4 , E4 (−/E3 ), V1 (−/V2 ),
are the longest SuperHyperCycles and SuperHyperGirths and there’s only one distinct
SuperHyperEdge to be back to the SuperHyperVertex V1 (−/V2 ). This event could be
SuperHyperBipartite in the Figure (8). All SuperHyperEdges aren’t used but there’s
only one repetition of the SuperHyperVertex in the initial position and the last position.
Let us gather all the longest SuperHyperCycles and the SuperHyperGirths as it’s
illustrated in the Figure (8) where the consecutive sequences are clear by the naming
the SuperHyperVertex, Vi , and the SuperHyperVertex is chosen from the distinct parts.
All possible the longest SuperHyperCycles have only four SuperHyperEdges and it’s
enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a
SuperHyperCycle. There’s any formation of any the longest SuperHyperCycle. Thus
SuperHyperGirth is well-defined.
20/35
Figure 8. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth in
the Example (4.8)
Proposition 4.9. Assume a SuperHyperMultipartite. Then SuperHyperGirth has all

the consecutive exterior SuperHyperVertices from different parts. The SuperHyperGirth’s
SuperHyperLength is obtained from the sequence.
Proof. Assume a SuperHyperMultipartite. The longest SuperHyperCycles and the
SuperHyperGirths are V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vs , Er , V1 where the even indexes indicate the
same part and with analogous to that, the odd indexes demonstrate the same part.
Then SuperHyperGirth has all the consecutive exterior SuperHyperVertices from
different parts. The SuperHyperGirth’s SuperHyperLength is obtained from the
sequence.
Example 4.10. In the Figure (9), the SuperHyperMultipartite is highlighted and
featured. The set of the SuperHyperParts is
{{V1 , V2 }, {V3 }, {V4 , V5 }}.
V1 (−/V2 ), E7 (−/E8 ), V4 , E3 , V3 , E4 , V5 , E5 (−/E6 ), V1 (−/V2 ),
are SuperHyperCycles and SuperHyperGirths and there’s only one distinct

SuperHyperEdge to be back to the SuperHyperVertex V1 (−/V2 ). This event could be
SuperHyperBipartite in the Figure (9). All SuperHyperEdges aren’t used but there’s
only one repetition of the SuperHyperVertex in the initial position and the last position.
Let us gather all the longest SuperHyperCycles and the SuperHyperGirths as it’s
illustrated in the Figure (9) where the consecutive sequences are clear by the naming
the SuperHyperVertex, Vi , and the SuperHyperVertex is chosen from the distinct parts.
All possible the longest SuperHyperCycles have only five SuperHyperEdges and it’s
enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a
SuperHyperCycle. There’s any formation of any the longest SuperHyperCycle. Thus
SuperHyperGirth is well-defined.
21/35
Figure 9. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth in
the Example (4.10)
Figure 10. A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth in the

Example (4.12)
Proposition 4.11. Assume a SuperHyperWheel. Then SuperHyperGirth is the all

SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperNeighborhood. The SuperHyperGirth’s
SuperHyperLength is the number of categories of exterior SuperHyperVertices.
Proof. Assume a SuperHyperWheel. The longest SuperHyperCycles and the
SuperHyperGirths are V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , . . . , Vs , Er , V1 where the indexes indicate either
the SuperHyperCenter or the SuperHyperNeighbors from the SuperHyperCycle of the
SuperHyperWheel. Then SuperHyperGirth is the all SuperHyperVertices from same
SuperHyperNeighborhood. The SuperHyperGirth’s SuperHyperLength is the number of
categories of exterior SuperHyperVertices.
Example 4.12. In the Figure (10), the SuperHyperWheel is highlighted and featured.
The consecutive sequence,
V1 , E2 , V2 , E4 , V3 , E6 , V4 , E8 , V1 ,
is a SuperHyperCycle but there’s only one distinct SuperHyperEdge to be back to any
22/35
Figure 11. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of SuperHyper-
Girth in the Example (5.2)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Mentioned in the Example
(5.2)
of the SuperHyperVertices in the mentioned consecutive sequence in the form of initial

SuperHyperVertex. This event could be happened to any of arbitrary consecutive
sequence which is chosen from the intended SuperHyperCycle in the Figure (10). All
SuperHyperEdges aren’t used but there’s only one repetition of any SuperHyperVertices
in the initial position and the last position. Let us gather all the longest
SuperHyperCycles and the SuperHyperGirths as it’s illustrated in the Figure (10) where
the consecutive sequences are clear in the form of exterior SuperHyperVertices since the
usage of interior SuperHyperVertices imply the repetition of SuperHyperEdges induce
the consecutive sequence isn’t SuperHyperCycle, isn’t SuperHyperGirth and
5 Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses

Proposition 5.1. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. Then neutrosophic
Example 5.2. In the Figure (11), the SuperHyperPath is highlighted and featured. By
using the Figure (11) and the Table (7), the neutrosophic SuperHyperPath is obtained.
There’s no SuperHyperCycle. Thus there’s no strongest SuperHyperCycle. It implies
there isn’t any neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth.
23/35
Figure 12. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of SuperHy-
perGirth in the Example (5.4)
Proposition 5.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Then
N eutrosophic SuperHyperGirth =
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , . . . , EThe number of the SuperHyperEdges−1 ,
VThe number of the SuperHyperEdges , EThe number of the SuperHyperEdges , V1 |
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , . . . , EThe number of the SuperHyperEdges−1 ,
VThe number of the SuperHyperEdges , EThe number of the SuperHyperEdges ,
V1 , is a SuperHyperGirth, it’s named to A and
X 3 X
i=1 Vj is used on a SuperHyperGirth, A

3
X X
σi (Vj ) = max
S is a SuperHyperGirth.
i=1 Vj is used on a SuperHyperGirth, S
σi (Vj }}.
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to

assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively.
Example 5.4. In the Figure (12), the SuperHyperCycle is highlighted and featured. By
using the Figure (12) and the Table (8), the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is obtained.
There’s only one SuperHyperCycle. Thus this SuperHyperCycle is the longest
SuperHyperCycle. So it’s SuperHyperGirth. Also, it’s the strongest SuperHyperCycle
by the uniqueness of SuperHyperCycles. Hence it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. The
V25 , E1 , V1 , E2 , V2 , E3 , V6 , E4 , V10 , E5 , V17 , E6 , V22 ,
is a SuperHyperCycle, a strongest SuperHyperCycle and a neutrosophic

SuperHyperGirth.
24/35
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Mentioned in the Example
(5.4)
Figure 13. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of SuperHyper-

Girth in the Example (5.6)
Proposition 5.5. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. Then neutrosophic

Example 5.6. In the Figure (13), the SuperHyperStar is highlighted and featured. By
using the Figure (13) and the Table (9), the neutrosophic SuperHyperStar is obtained.
There’s no SuperHyperCycle. Thus there’s no strongest SuperHyperCycle. It implies
there isn’t any neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth.
Proposition 5.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite. Then neutrosophic
25/35
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Mentioned in the Example
(5.6)
Figure 14. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Super-

HyperGirth in the Example (5.8)
SuperHyperGirth is
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , . . . En−1 , Vn , En , V1 |
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , . . . En−1 , Vn , En , V1 is a SuperHyperGirth and
X 3 X
i=1 Vj is used on a SuperHyperGirth, V1 ,E1 ,V2 ,E2 ,V3 ,E3 ,...En−1 ,Vn ,En ,V1
3
X X
σi (Vj ) = max
σi (Vj }}.
Example 5.8. In Figure (14), the SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted and featured.
By using the Figure (14) and the Table (10), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is
obtained.
Some exterior SuperHyperVertices are pointed out in the Figure (14). Thus the
positions of the exterior SuperHyperVertices are determined. The latter is
straightforward to get neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth.
26/35
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Mentioned in the Example
(5.8)
Figure 15. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

SuperHyperGirth in the Example (5.10)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite. Then neutrosophic

SuperHyperGirth is
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , . . . En−1 , Vn , En , V1 |
X 3 X
3
X X
σi (Vj ) = max
σi (Vj }}.

Example 5.10. In Figure (15), the SuperHyperMultipartite is highlighted and
featured. By using the Figure (15) and the Table (11), the neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained.
27/35
Table 11. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-
Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Mentioned in the Example
(5.10)
Figure 16. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of SuperHy-

perGirth in the Example (5.12)
Proposition 5.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. Then neutrosophic

SuperHyperGirth is
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , . . . , EThe half number of the SuperHyperEdges−1 ,
VThe half number of the SuperHyperEdges , EThe half number of the SuperHyperEdges , V1 |
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , . . . , EThe half number of the SuperHyperEdges−1 ,
VThe half number of the SuperHyperEdges , EThe half number of the SuperHyperEdges ,
V1 , is a SuperHyperGirth, it’s named to A and
X 3 X
i=1 Vj is used on a SuperHyperGirth, A

3
X X
σi (Vj ) = max
σi (Vj }}.
Example 5.12. In the Figure (16), the SuperHyperWheel is highlighted and featured.
By using the Figure (16) and the Table (12), the neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel is
obtained.
28/35
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Mentioned in the Example
(5.12)
6 General Results
For the longest SuperHyperCycle, called SuperHyperGirth, and the strongest
SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, some general results are
introduced.
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the
positions of the alphabets.
Corollary 6.2. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , . . . En−1 , Vn , En , V1 |
X 3 X
3
X X
σi (Vj ) = max
σi (Vj }}.
Corollary 6.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth and SuperHyperGirth
coincide.
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices and the
SuperHyperEdges is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth if and only if it’s a
SuperHyperGirth.
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices and the
SuperHyperEdges is a strongest SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest
SuperHyperCycle.
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is its
SuperHyperGirth and reversely.
Corollary 6.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle,
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is its
SuperHyperGirth and reversely.
29/35
Corollary 6.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined.
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then
its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth
isn’t well-defined.
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel).
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth isn’t well-defined if and only if its
Corollary 6.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic
SuperHyperGirth is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth is well-defined.
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth
is well-defined.
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel).
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperGirth
is well-defined.
7 Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions

The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this
phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences of
the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the
moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The recognition of the
cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease.
In the following, some steps are devised on this disease.
Step 1. (Definition) The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function.
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by
this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since
there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another
model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient
perception on what’s happened and what’s done.
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve
got the names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized
by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar,
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to
find either the longest SuperHyperCycle or the strongest SuperHyperCycle in
those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels.
7.1 Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward

SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (17), the SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted and
30/35
Figure 17. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth
Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
{{V1 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 , V5 }}.
V1 (−/V2 ), E2 (−/E1 ), V3 , E1 (−/E2 ), V2 (−/V1 ), E3 (−/E4 ), V4 , E4 (−/E3 ), V1 (−/V2 ),
are the longest SuperHyperCycles and SuperHyperGirths and there’s only one
distinct SuperHyperEdge to be back to the SuperHyperVertex V1 (−/V2 ). This
event could be happened to any of arbitrary consecutive sequence which is chosen
from the intended SuperHyperBipartite in the Figure (17). All SuperHyperEdges
aren’t used but there’s only one repetition of the SuperHyperVertex in the initial
position and the last position. Let us gather all the longest SuperHyperCycles and
the SuperHyperGirths as it’s illustrated in the Figure (17) where the consecutive
sequences are clear by the naming the SuperHyperVertex, Vi , and the
SuperHyperVertex is chosen from the distinct parts. All possible the longest
SuperHyperCycles have only four SuperHyperEdges and it’s enough since it’s
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a
SuperHyperCycle. There’s any formation of any the longest SuperHyperCycle.
Thus SuperHyperGirth is well-defined. By using the Figure (17) and the Table
(13), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is obtained.
31/35
Figure 18. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth
Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
7.2 Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward

SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (18), the SuperHyperMultipartite is highlighted and
{{V1 , V2 }, {V3 }, {V4 , V5 }}.
V1 (−/V2 ), E7 (−/E8 ), V4 , E3 , V3 , E4 , V5 , E5 (−/E6 ), V1 (−/V2 ),
are SuperHyperCycles and SuperHyperGirths and there’s only one distinct

SuperHyperEdge to be back to the SuperHyperVertex V1 (−/V2 ). This event could
be happened to any of arbitrary consecutive sequence which is chosen from the
intended SuperHyperBipartite in the Figure (18). All SuperHyperEdges aren’t
used but there’s only one repetition of the SuperHyperVertex in the initial
position and the last position. Let us gather all the longest SuperHyperCycles and
the SuperHyperGirths as it’s illustrated in the Figure (18) where the consecutive
sequences are clear by the naming the SuperHyperVertex, Vi , and the
SuperHyperVertex is chosen from the distinct parts. All possible the longest
SuperHyperCycles have only five SuperHyperEdges and it’s enough since it’s
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a
SuperHyperCycle. There’s any formation of any the longest SuperHyperCycle.
Thus SuperHyperGirth is well-defined. By using the Figure (18) and the Table
(14), the neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained.
32/35
8 Open Problems
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed.
The SuperHyperGirth and the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth are defined on a
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”.
Question 8.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s
recognitions?
Question 8.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperGirth and the
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth?
Question 8.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to

compute them?
Question 8.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to the SuperHyperCycles
beyond the SuperHyperGirth and the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth?
Problem 8.5. The strongest SuperHyperCycles and the longest SuperHyperCycles do a

SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperCycles,
are there else?
Problem 8.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these
SuperHyperNumbers types-results?
Problem 8.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions

concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions?
9 Conclusion and Closing Remarks

In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are
highlighted.
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the
SuperHyperCycles. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion,
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, finds the convenient background to implement some
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion,
SuperHyperGirth, the new SuperHyperClass, is called “SuperHyperFlower”, is
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperGirth
and the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. The clarifications, instances and literature
reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have
fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the
33/35
cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded
styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with
the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “SuperHyperCycle”
in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme
of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the
Table 15. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperGirth
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperFlower 3. SuperHyperFamilies
Table (15), some limitations and advantages of this research are pointed out.
References
1. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App.
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135.
2. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10
(2016) 86-101.
3. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244).
4. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing:
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf).
5. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160).
6. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14.
7. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf).
8. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi:
10.5281/zenodo.6456413).
34/35
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf).
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34).
9. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1).
10. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1).
11. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006.
12. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103).
13. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413.
35/35
View publication stats

SuperHyperGirth On SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer's Recognitions

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

SuperHyperGirth On SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer's Recognitions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

Preprint · December 2022

185 PUBLICATIONS 266 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

On Fuzzy Logic View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

Keywords: (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGirth,

1.1 Motivation and Contributions

Question 1.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.

Definition 1.7 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [12],Definition

(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ;

(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );

(ix) and the following conditions hold:

TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex;

TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.

Definition 1.12. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).

Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic

is called a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic

could be characterized as follow-up items.

SuperHyperCycleSHC1 : V11 , U5 , V2 , V11

Table 2. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and Super-

“SuperHyperOrder”. The SuperHyperCycles from any SuperHyperLength aren’t

SuperHyperCycleSHC1 : V11 , U5 , V2 , V11

Table 3. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

Definition 3.1. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined

SuperHyperCycles until the SuperHyperGirth, then it’s officially called

neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SHC1 : V11 , V1 , V2 , V11

Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and Super-

Table 6. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and Super-

SuperHyperLength four, then the SuperHyperGraph, is called “SuperHyperFlower”, is

neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SHC1 : V11 , V1 , V2 , V11

V25 , E1 , V1 , E2 , V2 , E3 , V6 , E4 , V10 , E5 , V17 , E6 , V22 ,

is a SuperHyperPath but there’s no more distinct SuperHyperEdge to be back to any of

(−/V1 /V24 /V26 /V23 /V29 /V28 /V27 )V25 ,

V25 , E1 , V1 , E2 , V2 , E3 , V6 , E4 , V10 , E5 , V17 , E6 , V22 ,

is a SuperHyperCycle but there’s only one distinct SuperHyperEdge to be back to any

where EEi is one of the Non-SuperHyperCenter from the SuperHyperEdges Ei and

is a SuperHyperPath but there’s no distinct SuperHyperEdge to be back to the

SuperHyperGirth’s SuperHyperLength is the minimum cardinality amid parts of

{{V1 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 , V5 }}.

The two consecutive sequences,

V1 (−/V2 ), E2 (−/E1 ), V3 , E1 (−/E2 ), V2 (−/V1 ), E3 (−/E4 ), V4 , E4 (−/E3 ), V1 (−/V2 ),

Proposition 4.9. Assume a SuperHyperMultipartite. Then SuperHyperGirth has all

{{V1 , V2 }, {V3 }, {V4 , V5 }}.

The two consecutive sequences,

V1 (−/V2 ), E7 (−/E8 ), V4 , E3 , V3 , E4 , V5 , E5 (−/E6 ), V1 (−/V2 ),

are SuperHyperCycles and SuperHyperGirths and there’s only one distinct

Figure 10. A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperGirth in the

Proposition 4.11. Assume a SuperHyperWheel. Then SuperHyperGirth is the all

is a SuperHyperCycle but there’s only one distinct SuperHyperEdge to be back to any

Table 7. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

of the SuperHyperVertices in the mentioned consecutive sequence in the form of initial

5 Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses