(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable On Cancer's Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/366792429
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer's Recognition by Well-

SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Preprint · January 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
198 PUBLICATIONS 712 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Combinatorics View project
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 02 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition 2
by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) 3
SuperHyperGraphs 4
Henry Garrett 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 7
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 8
Abstract 9
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 10
SuperHyperStable and Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable. Two different types of 11
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 12
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 14
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 15
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 17
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 18
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 19
research. The “Cancer’s Recognitions” are the under research to figure out the 20
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 21
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 22
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 23
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 24
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 25
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 26
Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some 27
avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues 28
are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some 29
questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a“SuperHyperStable” 30
I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 31
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have 32
a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an 33
“δ−SuperHyperStable” is a maximal SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with 34
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 35
(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 36
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 37
Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 38
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStable” is a 39
maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 40
neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 41
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 42
|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 43
The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 44
1/92
second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 45
define a “neutrosophic” version of an SuperHyperStable. Since there’s more ways to get 46
type-results to make an SuperHyperStable more understandable. For the sake of having 47
neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of an 48
“SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by 49
the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 50
position of labels to assign to the values. Assume an SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a 51
neutrosophic SuperHyperStable if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values 52
of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 53
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & 54
The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 55
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of 56
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 57
“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get 58
structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 59
SuperHyperGraph based on an SuperHyperStable. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to 60
have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a 61
need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperStable, then it’s 62
officially called an “SuperHyperStable” but otherwise, it isn’t an SuperHyperStable. 63
There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled an 64
“SuperHyperStable”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there 65
are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on an 66
SuperHyperStable. For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, there’s a 67
need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic SuperHyperStable” and a 68
“neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 69
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 70
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic 71
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 72
Table holds. And an SuperHyperStable are redefined to an “neutrosophic 73
SuperHyperStable” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” 74
version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results 75
to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable more understandable. Assume a 76
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the 77
intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 78
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 79
“neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 80
SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic 81
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 82
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic SuperHyperStable” where it’s the 83
strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperStable amid the 84
maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from an SuperHyperStable.] 85
SuperHyperStable. A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the 86
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic 87
SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 88
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two 89
exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 90
given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 91
amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 92
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two 93
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only 94
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these 95
SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 96
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 97
2/92
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 98
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 99
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 100
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 101
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 102
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 103
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 104
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 105
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In 106
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and 107
the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of 108
the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the 109
model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 110
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 111
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 112
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 113
said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 114
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 115
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 116
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 117
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 118
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 119
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperStable or the strongest 120
SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 121
SuperHyperStable, called SuperHyperStable, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called 122
neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 123
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 124
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 125
of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, 126
it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 127
A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 128
theory are proposed. 129
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable, Cancer’s 130
Recognition 131
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 132
1 Background 133
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 134
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 135
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 136
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 137
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 138
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 139
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 140
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 141
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 142
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 143
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 144
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 145
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 146
3/92
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 147
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 148
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 149
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 150
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 151
majority of notions. 152
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 153
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 154
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 155
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 156
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 157
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 158
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 159
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 160
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 161
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 162
based on initial background. 163
In some articles are titled “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 164
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 165
Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 166
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 167
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 168
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [4] by 169
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 170
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [5] by 171
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 173
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 174
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 175
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett 176
(2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 177
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 178
in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 179
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry 180
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 181
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 182
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 183
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 184
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 185
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 186
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 187
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 188
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 189
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 190
Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 191
than 2498 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 192
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 193
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 194
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 195
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 196
in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 197
than 3218 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 198
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 199
4/92
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 200
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 201
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 202
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 203
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 204
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 205
1.1 Motivation and Contributions 206
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 207
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 208
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 209
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 210
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 211
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 212
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 213
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 214
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 215
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 216
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 217
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 218
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 219
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Sometimes, the situations get 220
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 221
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 222
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 223
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 224
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 225
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 226
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 227
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 228
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 229
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 230
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 231
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 232
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 233
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 234
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 235
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 236
formally called “ SuperHyperStable” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 237
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 238
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 239
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 240
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 241
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 242
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 243
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 244
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 245
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 246
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 247
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 248
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 249
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 250
5/92
either the optimal SuperHyperStable or the neutrosophic SuperHyperStable in those 251
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 252
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 253
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 254
of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, 255
it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 256
Question 1.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 257
find the “ amount of SuperHyperStable” of either individual of cells or the groups of 258
cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 259
SuperHyperStable” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 260
Question 1.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognitions” in terms 261
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 262
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 263
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 264
SuperHyperStable” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperStable” on “SuperHyperGraph” and 265
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to 266
define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion 267
with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to 268
make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some 269
results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, 270
“Cancer’s Recognitions”, more understandable and more clear. 271
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 272
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 273
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 274
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 275
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 276
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 277
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperStable and 278
neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperStable” and 279
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 280
order to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and 281
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, 282
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, 283
titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 284
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 285
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 286
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 287
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 288
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 289
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 290
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 291
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 292
SuperHyperStable”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” 293
and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about 294
what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this 295
research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for 296
this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperStable”. The keyword of this 297
research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions” with two cases 298
and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 299
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 300
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 301
6/92
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 302
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 303
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 304
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 305
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 306
1.2 Preliminaries 307
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 308
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 309
Definition 1.3 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [16],Definition 2.1,p.87). 310
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 311
+
]− 0, 1 [. 312
Definition 1.4 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [19],Definition 6,p.2). 313
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 .
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. [18],Definition 314
3,p.291). 315
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 316
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 317
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 318
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 319
1, 2, . . . , n); 320
7/92
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 321
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 322
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 323
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 324
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 325
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 326
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ); 327
(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 . 328
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 329
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 330
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 331
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 332
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 333
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 334
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 335
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 336
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 337
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 338
Definition 1.8 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 339
(Ref. [18],Section 4,pp.291-292). 340
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 341
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 342
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 343
could be characterized as follow-up items. 344
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 345
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 346
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 347
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 348
HyperEdge; 349
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 350
SuperEdge; 351
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 352
SuperHyperEdge. 353
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 354
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 355
8/92
Definition 1.9 (t-norm). (Ref. [17], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 356
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 357
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 358
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 359
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 360
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 361
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 362
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)). 363
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 364
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 365
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 366
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 367
1, 2, . . . , n); 368
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 369
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 370
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 371
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 372
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 373
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 374
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ). 375
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 376
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 377
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 378
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 379
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 380
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 381
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 382
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 383
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 384
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 385
9/92
Definition 1.13 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 386
(Ref. [18],Section 4,pp.291-292). 387
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 388
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 389
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 390
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 392
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 393
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 394
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 395
HyperEdge; 396
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 397
SuperEdge; 398
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 399
SuperHyperEdge. 400
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 401
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 402
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 403
Definition 1.14. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 404
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 405
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to 406
have more understandable. 407
Definition 1.15. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 408
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 409
(i). It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 410
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 411
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 412
given SuperHyperEdges; 413
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 414
SuperHyperEdges; 415
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 416
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 417
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 418
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 419
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 420
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 421
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 422
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 423
common SuperVertex. 424
10/92
Definition 1.16. 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 425
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 426
of following conditions hold: 427
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 428
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 429
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 430
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 431
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 432
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 433
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 434
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 435
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 436
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 437
Definition 1.17. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 438
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

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; 440
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 441
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 442
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called SuperHyperPath. 443
Definition 1.18. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable). 444
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 445
(i) an SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 446
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that 447
there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common; 448
(ii) a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 449
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 450
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 451
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic 452
SuperHyperEdge in common. 453
11/92
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(1.22)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
Definition 1.19. ((neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperStable). 454
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 455
(i) an δ−SuperHyperStable is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 456
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) 457
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 458
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (1.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (1.2)
The Expression (1.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 459
Expression (1.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 460
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStable is a maximal neutrosophic of 461
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 462
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 463
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 464
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (1.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (1.4)
The Expression (1.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 465
And the Expression (1.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 466
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 467
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to 468
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 469
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 470
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 471
Definition 1.20. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 472
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 473
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 474
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 475
understandable. 476
Definition 1.21. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 477
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 478
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 479
SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, neutrosophic 480
SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic 481
SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 482
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 483
12/92
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(1.21)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(1.22)
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a SuperHyperStable. Since there’s 484
more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperStable more understandable. 485
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to 486
“redefine” the notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 487
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 488
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 489
Definition 1.22. Assume a SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 490
SuperHyperStable if the Table (3) holds. 491
2 Extreme SuperHyperStable 492
Example 2.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 493
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 494
• On the Figure (1), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperStable, is up. E1 495
and E3 SuperHyperStable are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop 496
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 497
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 498
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 499
an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given 500
SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are 501
the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. 502
{V3 , V1 }
{V3 , V2 }
{V3 , V4 }
The SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the 503
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSets of the 504
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are corresponded to a 505
SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 506
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such 507
that there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. 508
13/92
There’re only two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus 509
the non-obvious SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 510
of the SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one 511
SuperHyperVertex. But the SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, 512
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, don’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices insdie 513
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 514
the SuperHyperStable are up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSets of 515
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the non-obvious simple 516
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSets of the 517
SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 519
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex 520
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and they are corresponded to a 521
SuperHyperStable. Since They’ve the maximum cardinality of a 522
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two 524
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSets, 525
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable, 526
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of 527
the SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are SuperHyperSets, 528
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, don’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices 529
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 530
mention that the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 531
SuperHyperStable amid those obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 532
SuperHyperStable, is only {V3 , V4 }. 533
• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperStable, is up. E1 534
and E3 SuperHyperStable are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop 535
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 536
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 537
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 538
an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given 539
SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are 540
the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. 541
{V3 , V1 }
{V3 , V2 }
{V3 , V4 }
The SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the 542
SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 545
of the SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one 550
SuperHyperVertex. But the SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, 551
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, don’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside 552
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 553
the SuperHyperStable are up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSets of 554
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the non-obvious simple 555
14/92
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSets of the 556
SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 558
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and they are corresponded to a 560
SuperHyperStable. Since They’ve the maximum cardinality of a 561
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSets, 564
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable, 565
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of 566
the SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are SuperHyperSets, 567
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, don’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices 568
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 569
mention that the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 570
SuperHyperStable amid those obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 571
SuperHyperStable, is only {V3 , V4 }. 572
• On the Figure (3), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperStable, is up. 573
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an SuperHyperEdge. 574
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 575
namely, E4 . The SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the 576
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the maximum cardinality of a 578
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only one SuperHyperVertex 580
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable 581
aren’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable is a 582
SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected 583
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSets of 584
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, don’t have more than one 585
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 586
simple type-SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperStable aren’t up. To sum them 587
up, the SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, aren’t the 588
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. Since the 589
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are corresponded to 590
a SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 591
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and they are SuperHyperStable. Since 593
they’ve the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 594
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a 595
SuperHyperEdge in common. There are only less than two SuperHyperVertices 596
inside the intended SuperHyperSets, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }. Thus the non-obvious 597
SuperHyperStable, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, aren’t up. The obvious simple 598
type-SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperStable, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the 599
SuperHyperSets, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, don’t include only more than one 600
SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 601
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 602
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperStable amid those obvious 603
simple type-SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperStable, is only {V3 }. 604
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, an SuperHyperStable, is up. 605
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 606
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 607
15/92
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The SuperHyperSet of 608
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 609
SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 }, is 610
the non-obvious SuperHyperStable isn’t up. The obvious simple 614
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only 615
one SuperHyperVertex since it doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to 616
SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 617
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 }, doesn’t 618
have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus 619
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable isn’t up. 620
To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 }, is the 621
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of a 623
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 625
that there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There 627
aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 628
{V2 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V4 }, is up. The obvious 629
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V4 }, is a 630
SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 }, doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices 631
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 632
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 634
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 }, is the simple 635
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the 636
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 637
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable is 640
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable is a 641
SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex thus it doesn’t form any 642
kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 643
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 644
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 }, doesn’t have less than two 645
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 646
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the 647
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 }, is the non-obvious simple 648
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the 649
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 650
SuperHyperEdge in common. and it’s SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 652
the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 653
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less 654
than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 655
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 }, is up. 656
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable, 657
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 }, doesn’t include only less 658
than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 659
16/92
N SHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the SuperHyperModel N SHG : (V, E) in the 660
Figure (5). 661
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 664
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet 665
of the SuperHyperVertices, 666
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
is the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 667
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only only 668
SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 670
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex 671
doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 672
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 673
SuperHyperVertices, 674
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 675
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 676
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of 677
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. Since the 679
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 680
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 681
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a 682
SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of 683
SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices 685
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 686
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable, 687
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
17/92
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable, 688
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
is a SuperHyperSet, 689
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 690
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a illustrated 691
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6). 692
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 }, is the simple 695
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 697
SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of 702
pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 703
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices 705
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple 706
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the 707
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 }, is the non-obvious simple 708
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices 710
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common 711
and it’s a SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a 712
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 }. Thus the 715
non-obvious SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V9 }, is up. The obvious simple 716
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V9 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 717
{V2 , V5 , V9 }, doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 718
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of depicted SuperHyperModel as 719
the Figure (7). 720
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only two 727
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only two SuperHyperVertices 730
doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 731
18/92
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 },is the non-obvious simple 736
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V8 }, Thus the 743
{V2 , V5 , V8 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two SuperHyperVertices in a 746
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of dense 747
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 748
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 751
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet 752
of the SuperHyperVertices, 753
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
is the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 754
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only only 755
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex 758
doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 759
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 762
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 763
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. Since the 766
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 767
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
19/92
SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of 770
SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices 772
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 773
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable, 774
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
is a SuperHyperSet, 776
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , },
doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 777
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a messy 778
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (9). 779
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only two 786
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only two SuperHyperVertices 789
doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 790
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 },is the non-obvious simple 795
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V8 }, Thus the 802
20/92
{V2 , V5 , V8 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two SuperHyperVertices in a 805
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of 806
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 807
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet 810
of the SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 811
{V2 , V5 }, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 812
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices inside the 814
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable is up. The 815
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet 816
includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are 817
titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 818
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable is up. To 821
sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 }, is the 822
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 824
SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 826
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is the simple 836
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is the maximum cardinality of 838
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only two SuperHyperVertices inside 840
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable is up. The 841
includes only two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled 843
to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 844
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 845
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the 846
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 847
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 },is the non-obvious simple 849
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 851
SuperHyperEdge in common and they are SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 853
the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 854
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less 855
than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 856
21/92
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, 857
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, doesn’t include only 859
more than one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 860
N SHG : (V, E) in highly-multiple-connected-style SuperHyperModel On the 861
Figure (12). 862
22/92
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices 921
SuperHyperSet includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices don’t form any 924
kind of pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 925
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V2 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple 930
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V2 , V6 }. Thus the 937
{V5 , V2 , V6 }, doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 940
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected 941
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 942
23/92
N SHG : (V, E). 970
N SHG : (V, E) as Lnearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured On the 998
Figure (17). 999
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of 1002
the SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, is 1003
that there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s 1005
only one SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1006
non-obvious SuperHyperStable isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1007
of the SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two 1008
SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 1009
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, does has 1011
less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1012
24/92
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable isn’t up. To 1013
sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, isn’t the 1014
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 1016
that there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s 1020
only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 }. 1021
Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable, {V2 }, isn’t up. The obvious simple 1022
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable, {V2 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 }, 1023
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1024
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 1025
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , O6 , V9 , V5 }, is the simple 1028
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , O6 , V9 , V5 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 1030
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , O6 , V9 , V5 }, doesn’t have less than two 1038
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , O6 , V9 , V5 }, is the non-obvious simple 1041
SuperHyperVertices,{V1 , O6 , V9 , V5 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 1043
aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1048
SuperHyperSet,{V1 , O6 , V9 , V5 }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable, 1049
{V1 , O6 , V9 , V5 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1050
SuperHyperStable,{V1 , O6 , V9 , V5 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , O6 , V9 , V5 }, doesn’t 1051
include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1052
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1053
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V5 , R9 , V6 , V9 , S9 , V10 , P4 , T4 }, is 1056
the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of 1057
the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V5 , R9 , V6 , V9 , S9 , V10 , P4 , T4 }, is 1058
of the SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two 1063
SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 1064
25/92
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperStable in
the Example (2.1)
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 1066
{V1 , V3 , V5 , R9 , V6 , V9 , S9 , V10 , P4 , T4 }, doesn’t have less than two 1067
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V5 , R9 , V6 , V9 , S9 , V10 , P4 , T4 }, is 1070
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable. Since the 1071
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V5 , R9 , V6 , V9 , S9 , V10 , P4 , T4 }, 1072
SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a 1075
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1078
{V1 , V3 , V5 , R9 , V6 , V9 , S9 , V10 , P4 , T4 }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperStable, 1079
{V1 , V3 , V5 , R9 , V6 , V9 , S9 , V10 , P4 , T4 }, is up. The obvious simple 1080
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable, 1081
{V1 , V3 , V5 , R9 , V6 , V9 , S9 , V10 , P4 , T4 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 1082
{V1 , V3 , V5 , R9 , V6 , V9 , S9 , V10 , P4 , T4 }, doesn’t include only less than two 1083
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1084
N SHG : (V, E). 1085
Proposition 2.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1086
N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ V \ {z}, is a SuperHyperStable. 1087
In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a 1088
SuperHyperStable is the cardinality of V \ V \ {z}. 1089
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The 1090
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {} is a SuperHyperSet S of 1091
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge 1092
in common but it isn’t an SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t have 1093
there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. The 1095
26/92
the Example (2.1)

the Example (2.1)
27/92
the Example (2.1)

the Example (2.1)
28/92
the Example (2.1)

the Example (2.1)
29/92
the Example (2.1)

the Example (2.1)
30/92
the Example (2.1)

the Example (2.1)
31/92
the Example (2.1)

the Example (2.1)
32/92
the Example (2.1)

the Example (2.1)
33/92
the Example (2.1)

the Example (2.1)
34/92
the Example (2.1)

the Example (2.1)
35/92
the Example (2.1)
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, z} is the maximum cardinality of 1096
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a SuperHyperStable. Since it 1097
doesn’t do the procedure such that such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a 1098
SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’s at least one SuperHyperVertex inside implying 1099
there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a 1100
SuperHyperVertex, titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to that SuperHyperVertex in the 1101
SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. There’s only one 1102
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {z}. Thus the obvious 1103
SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {z}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1104
SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {z}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {z}, includes only one 1105
SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled SuperHyperNeighbors in a 1106
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of 1107
the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z}, is the maximum cardinality of a 1108
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s no SuperHyperVertex 1109
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. 1110
Proposition 2.3. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1111
Then the extreme number of SuperHyperStable has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1112
bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ V \ {z} if there’s an 1113
SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1114
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1115
there’s an SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1116
cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {} is a 1117
a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t an SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t have 1119
36/92
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Then the extreme number of SuperHyperStable 1136
has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme 1137
cardinality of V \ V \ {z} if there’s an SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the 1138
lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1139
If a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then z − 1 number of those interior 1141
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge exclude to any SuperHyperStable. 1142
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Let a 1143
SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices. Consider z − 2 number of those 1144
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of 1145
the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an SuperHyperStable with the least 1146
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic 1147
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1148
V \ V \ {} is a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 1149
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t an 1150
SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t have the maximum cardinality of a 1151
a SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1153
V \ V \ {x, z} is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices 1154
but it isn’t a SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that such that 1155
there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’s at least 1156
one SuperHyperVertex inside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic 1157
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, 1158
to that SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. 1159
There’s only one SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {z}. 1160
Thus the obvious SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {z}, is up. The obvious simple 1161
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {z}, is a SuperHyperSet, 1162
V \ V \ {z}, includes only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs are 1163
titled SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1164
N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z}, is the 1165
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) 1166
there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, if a 1167
SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then z − 1 number of those interior 1168
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge exclude to any SuperHyperStable. 1169
There’s not any SuperHyperEdge has only more than one distinct interior 1171
SuperHyperVertex inside of any given SuperHyperStable. In other words, there’s not an 1172
unique SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct SuperHyperVertices in a SuperHyperStable. 1173
37/92
SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those 1175
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding more than one distinct 1176
SuperHyperVertex, exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. 1177
Consider there’s an SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound 1178
for cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1179
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {} is a SuperHyperSet S of 1180
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, there’s not any SuperHyperEdge has only 1199
more than one distinct interior SuperHyperVertex inside of any given SuperHyperStable. 1200
In other words, there’s not an unique SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct 1201
SuperHyperVertices in a SuperHyperStable. 1202
N SHG : (V, E). The all interior SuperHyperVertices belong to any SuperHyperStable if 1204
for any of them, there’s no other corresponded SuperHyperVertex such that the two 1205
interior SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. 1206
Proof. Let a SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of 1207
those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding one distinct 1208
38/92
the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z}, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 1229
S of SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a 1230
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, the all interior SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1231
SuperHyperStable if for any of them, there’s no other corresponded SuperHyperVertex 1232
such that the two interior SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. 1233
N SHG : (V, E). The any SuperHyperStable only contains all interior 1235
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has 1236
no SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s no SuperHyperNeighborhoods in but everything is 1237
possible about SuperHyperNeighborhoods and SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1238
SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of those 1240
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding one distinct 1241
the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z}, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 1262
S of SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a 1263
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, the any SuperHyperStable only contains all interior 1264
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has 1265
no SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s no SuperHyperNeighborhoods in but everything 1266
is possible about SuperHyperNeighborhoods and SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1267
Remark 2.8. The words “ SuperHyperStable” and “SuperHyperDominating” refer to 1268
the maximum type-style and the minimum type-style. In other words, they refer to 1269
both the maximum[minimum] number and the SuperHyperSet with the 1270
maximum[minimum] cardinality. 1271
Consider a SuperHyperDominating. Then a SuperHyperStable is either in or out. 1273
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1274
a SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (2.7), the results are up. Thus 1275
39/92
on a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), and in a 1276
SuperHyperDominating. Then a SuperHyperStable is either in or out. 1277
3 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1278
Proposition 3.1. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then a 1279
SuperHyperStable-style with the maximum SuperHyperCardinality is a SuperHyperSet of 1280
the interior SuperHyperVertices. 1281
Proposition 3.2. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then a 1282
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices with only all 1283
exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1284
SuperHyperEdges. An SuperHyperStable has the number of all the interior 1285
SuperHyperVertices minus their SuperHyperNeighborhoods. 1286
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1287
has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of those SuperHyperVertices from 1288
that SuperHyperEdge excluding one distinct SuperHyperVertex, exclude to any given 1289
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an SuperHyperStable with 1290
the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. Assume a connected 1291
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the 1292
SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {} is a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that 1293
there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t an 1294
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1302
SuperHyperNeighbor, to that SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S 1303
doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex inside the intended 1304
SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {z}. Thus the obvious SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {z}, is up. 1305
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {z}, is a 1306
SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {z}, includes only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any 1307
kind of pairs are titled SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 1308
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1309
V \ V \ {z}, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1310
SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a 1311
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), a 1312
exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1314
SuperHyperEdges. An SuperHyperStable has the number of all the interior 1315
SuperHyperVertices minus their SuperHyperNeighborhoods. 1316
Example 3.3. In the Figure (21), the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), is 1317
highlighted and featured. The SuperHyperSet, {V27 , V2 , V7 , V12 , V22 }, of the 1318
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in the 1319
SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperStable. 1320
Proposition 3.4. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Then a 1321
exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same 1323
40/92
Figure 21. A SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperStable in the
Example (3.3)
SuperHyperNeighborhoods. A SuperHyperStable has the number of all the 1324
SuperHyperEdges and the lower bound is the half number of all the SuperHyperEdges. 1325
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1326
there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a 1350
connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), a SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet 1351
of the interior SuperHyperVertices with only all exceptions in the form of interior 1352
41/92
Figure 22. A SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperStable in the
Example (3.5)
SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperNeighborhoods. A SuperHyperStable 1353
has the number of all the SuperHyperEdges and the lower bound is the half number of 1354
all the SuperHyperEdges. 1355
Example 3.5. In the Figure (22), the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), is 1356
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1357
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in 1358
the SuperHyperModel (22), 1359
{{P13 , J13 , K13 , H13 },

{Z13 , W13 , V13 }, {U14 , T14 , R14 , S14 },
{P15 , J15 , K15 , R15 },
{J5 , O5 , K5 , L5 }, {J5 , O5 , K5 , L5 }, V3 ,
{U6 , H7 , J7 , K7 , O7 , L7 , P7 }, {T8 , U8 , V8 , S8 },
{T9 , K9 , J9 }, {H10 , J10 , E10 , R10 , W9 },
{S11 , R11 , O11 , L11 },
{U12 , V12 , W12 , Z12 , O12 }},
is the SuperHyperStable. 1360
Proposition 3.6. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Then a 1361
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the 1362
SuperHyperCenter, with only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1363
from common SuperHyperEdge. An SuperHyperStable has the number of the cardinality 1364
of the second SuperHyperPart. 1365
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1366
42/92
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1381
SuperHyperNeighbor, to that SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S 1382
doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex inside the intended 1383
SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {z}. Thus the obvious SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {z}, is up. 1384
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {z}, is a 1385
SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {z}, includes only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any 1386
kind of pairs are titled SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 1387
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1388
V \ V \ {z}, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1389
SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a 1390
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), a 1391
SuperHyperCenter, with only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1393
from common SuperHyperEdge. An SuperHyperStable has the number of the 1394
cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart. 1395
Example 3.7. In the Figure (23), the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), is 1396
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1397
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), in 1398
the SuperHyperModel (23), 1399
{{W14 , D15 , Z14 , C15 , E15 },

{P3 , O3 , R3 , L3 , S3 }, {P2 , T2 , S2 , R2 , O2 },
{O6 , O7 , K7 , P6 , H7 , J7 , E7 , L7 },
{J8 , Z10 , W10 , V10 }, {W11 , V11 , Z11 , C12 },
{U13 , T13 , R13 , S13 }, {H13 },
{E13 , D13 , C13 , Z12 }, }
Proposition 3.8. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Then a 1401
exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices titled SuperHyperNeighbors. A 1403
SuperHyperStable has the number of the cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart 1404
multiplies with the cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart. 1405
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Let a 1406
43/92
Figure 23. A SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperStable in the
Example (3.7)
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperBipartite 1431
N SHB : (V, E), a SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior 1432
SuperHyperVertices with only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1433
titled SuperHyperNeighbors. A SuperHyperStable has the number of the cardinality of 1434
the first SuperHyperPart multiplies with the cardinality of the second 1435
SuperHyperPart. 1436
Example 3.9. In the Figure (24), the connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), 1437
is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1438
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperBipartite 1439
44/92
Figure 24. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperStable in
the Example (3.9)
N SHB : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (24), 1440
{{C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },
Proposition 3.10. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). 1442
Then a SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices with 1443
only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart 1444
and only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another 1445
SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors”. A SuperHyperStable has the number of 1446
all the summation on the cardinality of the all SuperHyperParts form distinct 1447
SuperHyperEdges. 1448
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Let a 1449
45/92
Figure 25. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperStable
in the Example (3.11)
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperMultipartite 1474
N SHM : (V, E), a SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior 1475
SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1476
from a SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the form of interior 1477
SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors”. A 1478
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the summation on the cardinality of the all 1479
SuperHyperParts form distinct SuperHyperEdges. 1480
Example 3.11. In the Figure (25), the connected SuperHyperMultipartite 1481
N SHM : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the 1482
Algorithm in previous result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1483
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 1484
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
{Z7 , W7 }},
in the SuperHyperModel (25), is the SuperHyperStable. 1485
Proposition 3.12. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Then a 1486
SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1488
from same SuperHyperEdge. A SuperHyperStable has the number of all the number of 1489
all the SuperHyperEdges have no common SuperHyperNeighbors for a SuperHyperVertex. 1490
46/92
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1491
there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a 1515
connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), a SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet 1516
of the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one 1517
exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge. A 1518
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the number of all the SuperHyperEdges have 1519
no common SuperHyperNeighbors for a SuperHyperVertex. 1520
Example 3.13. In the Figure (26), the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 1521
is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1522
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 1523
{V5 ,
{Z13 , W13 , U13 , V13 , O14 },
{T10 , K10 , J10 },
{E7 , C7 , Z6 },
{T14 , U14 , R15 , S15 }},
4 General Extreme Results 1525
For the SuperHyperStable, and the neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, some general 1526
results are introduced. 1527
Remark 4.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic SuperHyperStable is “redefined” on the 1528
positions of the alphabets. 1529
47/92
Figure 26. A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperStable in the
Example (3.13)
Corollary 4.2. Assume SuperHyperStable. Then 1530
N eutrosophic SuperHyperStable =
{theSuperHyperStableof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperDef ensiveSuperHyper
Stable|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperStable. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to 1531
assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1532
Corollary 4.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1533
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic SuperHyperStable and 1534
SuperHyperStable coincide. 1535
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1537
neutrosophic SuperHyperStable if and only if it’s an SuperHyperStable. 1538
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1540
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 1541
Corollary 4.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1542
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperStable is its 1543
SuperHyperStable and reversely. 1544
Corollary 4.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 1545
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1546
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperStable is its 1547
SuperHyperStable and reversely. 1548
Corollary 4.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 1549
SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 1550
Corollary 4.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1551
its neutrosophic SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStable 1552
isn’t well-defined. 1553
48/92
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1556
SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 1557
Corollary 4.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 1558
SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 1559
Corollary 4.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1560
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its 1561
SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 1562
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its 1565
SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 1566
Proposition 4.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1567
is 1568
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1569
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1570
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1571
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1572
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1573
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1574
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 1575
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 1576
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 1577
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1578
statements are equivalent. 1579
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1580
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
49/92
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the 1582
following statements are equivalent. 1583
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1584
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1586
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 1588
equivalent. 1589
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
1590
Proposition 4.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1591
∅ is 1592
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1593
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1594
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1595
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1596
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1597
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1598
50/92
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 1599
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 1600
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 1601
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following statements 1602
are equivalent. 1603
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1604
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1606
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following statements 1608
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1610
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
51/92
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1612
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
1614
Proposition 4.16. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1615
independent SuperHyperSet is 1616
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1617
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1618
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1619
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1620
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1621
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1622
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 1623
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 1624
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable 1626
since the following statements are equivalent. 1627
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive 1628
SuperHyperStable since the following statements are equivalent. 1629
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive 1630
52/92
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable 1632
since the following statements are equivalent. 1633
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1634
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1636
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
1638
Proposition 4.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1639
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 1640
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1641
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1642
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1643
(iv) : O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1644
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1645
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1646
53/92
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1647
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1648
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 1649
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1650
SuperHyperStable. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 1651
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 1652
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 1653
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 1654
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 1655
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDefensive 1656
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 1657
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 1658
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. This segment 1659
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 1660
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 1661
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 1662
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 1665
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 1666
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1667
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1668
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 1669
Proposition 4.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1670
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1671
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1672
54/92
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1673
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1674
(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1675
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1676
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1677
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1678
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1679
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 1680
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 1683
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 1684
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 1685
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive 1687
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 1688
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1690
Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1691
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 1694
(i) : the SuperHyperStable; 1695
(ii) : the SuperHyperStable; 1696
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperStable; 1697
(iv) : the O(N SHG)-SuperHyperStable; 1698
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperStable; 1699
(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperStable. 1700
55/92
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1701
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1702
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1703
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 1704
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 1707
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 1708
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 1709
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 1712
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 1713
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. This segment 1714
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 1715
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 1716
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 1717
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 1720
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1722
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1723
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1726
(i) : the dual SuperHyperStable; 1727
56/92
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperStable; 1728
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperStable; 1729
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-SuperHyperStable; 1730
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-SuperHyperStable; 1731
(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-SuperHyperStable. 1732
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1733
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1735
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 1736
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 1739
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 1740
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 1741
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual 1743
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform 1744
SuperHyperWheel. 1745
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1747
Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1748
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1751
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1752
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1753
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1754
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1758
57/92
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1759
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1760
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 1761
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 1762
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 1763
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 1764
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable in 1765
a given SuperHyperStar. 1766
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1767
SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 1768
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 1770
SuperHyperStable and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost 1772
equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 1773
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 1775
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 1776

O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Thus 1778
O(N SHG)
it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1779
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1783
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1784
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1785
is a 1786
58/92
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1790
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1791
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1792
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1793
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1794
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has 1795
either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 1796
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable in a 1797
given SuperHyperStar. 1798
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 1799
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 1800
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has no 1801
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 1802
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 1804
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 1805
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 1806
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has no 1807
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 1808
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar 1810
nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 1811
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s an 1813
δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1814
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1818
number of 1819
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1823
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1824
59/92
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1825
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1826
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1827
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1828
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 1831
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 1832
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 1833
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 1837
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 1839
SuperHyperStable and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost 1841
equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 1842
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 1844
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 1845

O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Thus 1847
O(N SHG)
it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1848
Proposition 4.24. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1850
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1851
60/92
(iv) : SuperHyperStable; 1855
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1856
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1857
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1858
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some 1859
SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 1860
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable 1861
and number of connected component is |V − S|. 1862
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a dual 1864
1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1865
Proposition 4.25. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1867
number is at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG). 1868
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 1869
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 1870
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 1871
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following statements 1872
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 1874
equivalent. 1875
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1876
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
61/92
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 1878
equivalent. 1879
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1880
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1882
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable and V is the biggest 1884
SuperHyperSet in N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(N SHG : (V, E)) and 1885
the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG : (V, E)). 1886
Proposition 4.26. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1887
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 1888
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1889
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1893
(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1895
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1896
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 1897
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 1898
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
62/92
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 +1 1900
and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting 1901
t>
2
of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1902
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1903
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive 1906
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 1907
number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 1908
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 1909
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1910
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1911
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 1914

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 1917
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1919
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1922

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1925
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1927
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong 1930
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable in a given 1931
63/92
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 1932
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 1933
t>
2
dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1935
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected 1938
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable in a given 1939
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 1940
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 1941
t>
2
dual connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet 1944
in the setting of dual 1945
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1949
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1950
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1951
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 1952
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 1953
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1955
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet 1957
in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1958
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1959
64/92
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
in the setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1962
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the 1963
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1966
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1967
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1970
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the following 1971
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1974
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable since the 1975
65/92
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDefensive 1978
SuperHyperStable. 1979
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1981
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1983
O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1984
of a dual 1985
(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1989
(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 1990
(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 1991
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1992
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 1993
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1994
SuperHyperStable. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, 1995
suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 1996
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 1997
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1998
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperCycle. 1999
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2000
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 2002
66/92
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2003
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperPath. 2005
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2006
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 2008
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2009
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperWheel. 2011
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2013
Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2014
Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 2016
On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2017
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 2020

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 2022
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half 2030
67/92
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2031
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 2032
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 2035
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 2038
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 2039
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable and they are chosen from different 2040
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 2041
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2042
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2043
SuperHyperStable in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 2044
SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 2045

O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2047
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 2048
Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2051
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 2052
t>
2
Proposition 4.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the N SHGs : (V, E) 2054
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 2055
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 2056
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 2057
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 2058
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 2059
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, N SHGs : (V, E), are 2060
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 2061
Proposition 4.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 2062
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 2063
68/92
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 2064
(ii) vx ∈ E. 2065
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2066
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, 2067
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x).
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 2068
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, 2069
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x).
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
2070
Proposition 4.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 2071
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, then 2072
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 2073
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 2074
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, either 2076
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
or 2077
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
It implies S is SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperSet. 2078
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, either 2080
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
69/92
or 2081
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2082
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 2083
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 2084
number. 2085
Proposition 4.34. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2086
Then 2087
(i) Γ ≤ O; 2088
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 2089
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2090
S = V. 2091
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. For all SuperHyperSets 2092
of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 2093
S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So 2094
for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 2095
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 2096
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. For all SuperHyperSets 2097
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 2098
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all 2099
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all 2100
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 2101
Proposition 4.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2102
which is connected. Then 2103
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 2104
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2105
70/92
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2106
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 2107
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. For all 2108
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 2109
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 2110
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 2111
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 2112
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2113
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 2114
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. For all 2115
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 2116
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2117
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 2118
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 2119
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2120
Proposition 4.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 2121
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2122
SuperHyperStable; 2123
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2124
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2125
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 2126
a dual SuperHyperStable. 2127
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 2128
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2129
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
71/92
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. If 2130
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 2131
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual 2132
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 2133
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 2135
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2136
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 2137
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 2138
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2139
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2140
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 4.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 2146
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 2147
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 2148
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 2149
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2150
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 2151
dual SuperHyperStable. 2152
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 2153
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2154
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
72/92
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. If 2155
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 2156
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2157
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2158
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2161
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2162
SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 2163
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 4.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 2170
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2171
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 2173
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2174
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 2175
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 2176
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 2178
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2179
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
73/92
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. If 2180
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 2181
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2182
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2183
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2186
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2187
SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 2188
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 4.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 2195
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2196
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2198
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2199
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 2200
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 2202
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
74/92
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2210
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 2211
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 2212
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2213
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2214
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 4.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 2220
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperStable; 2221
(ii) Γ = 1; 2222
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 2223
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperStable. 2224
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 2225
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
75/92
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. If 2226
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 2227
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. It induces 2228
S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2229
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s 2231
enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Suppose 2232
N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 2233
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2234
Proposition 4.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 2235
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 2236
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 2237
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 2238
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 2239
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 2240
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2241
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 2242

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 2243
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 2244
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 3 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
6+3(i−1)≤n
It implies S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 2245
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. If 2246

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 2247
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 2248
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
76/92
or 2249
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
6+3(i−1)≤n
So S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 2250
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2251
6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a 2252
dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2253
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 2254
Proposition 4.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 2255
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2256
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 2258
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 2259
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2260
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 2262

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 2263
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. If 2264
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2265
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2266
bn c+1
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {vi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2267
Proposition 4.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 2270
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 2271
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 2272
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 2273
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2274
77/92
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 2276
Thus 2277
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. If 2278
n
b c bn
2c
S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2279
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
n
b2c
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2281
Proposition 4.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 2284
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 2285
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2286
SuperHyperStable for N SHF; 2287
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 2288
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 2289
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 2290
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2291
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 2292
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable for 2293
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 2294
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable for 2295
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 2296
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2297
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable 2299
for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 2300
78/92
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) 2301
is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 2302
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable for 2303
N SHF : (V, E). 2304
Proposition 4.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 2305
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 2306
SuperHyperSet. Then 2307
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2308
SuperHyperStable for N SHF; 2309
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 2310
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 2311
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperStable for 2312
N SHF : (V, E). 2313
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 2314
Thus 2315
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable for 2316
bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2317
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 2319
Proposition 4.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 2322
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 2323
SuperHyperSet. Then 2324
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable 2325
for N SHF : (V, E); 2326
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 2327
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 2328
S={vi }i=1
79/92
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperStable for 2329
N SHF : (V, E). 2330
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 2331
Thus 2332
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable for 2333
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2334
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 2336
Then following statements hold; 2340
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 2341
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 2342
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2344
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive 2345
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 2348
SuperHyperStable. Then 2349
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2350
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 2352
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2354
80/92
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 2357
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 2358
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2360
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 2361
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 2364
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. By S is an 2366
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable and S is a dual 2367
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 2368
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 2371
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. By S is an 2373
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable and S is a dual 2374
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 2375
Proposition 4.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] 2377
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 2378
statements hold; 2379
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2382
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 2384
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2386
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2387
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2388
SuperHyperGraph. Then 2389
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1) < 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
81/92
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2390
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2391
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2393
(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2394
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2396
(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2397
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2399
Proposition 4.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] 2400
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 2401
statements hold; 2402
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2405
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 2407
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2409
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2410
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
82/92
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Then 2414
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2416
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Then 2418
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
2419
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2421
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2422
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2425
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 2427
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2430
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Then 2432
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
83/92
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Then 2434
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2436
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Then 2438
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
2439
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2441
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2442
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2445
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is 2447
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable; 2448
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2450
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 2452
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2459
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2462
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 2464
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2466
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2468
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2470
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Then 2475
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Then 2477
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
85/92
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. 2479
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable. Then 2481
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
2482
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 2484
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2486
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2488
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2490
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 2495
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
86/92
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
5 Applications in Cancer’s Extreme Recognition 2506
The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this 2507
phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences of 2508
the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the 2509
moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The recognition of the 2510
cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease. 2511
In the following, some steps are devised on this disease. 2512
Step 1. (Definition) The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 2513
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 2514
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by 2515
this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since 2516
there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 2517
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another 2518
model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient 2519
perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 2520
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve 2521
got the names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer 2522
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized 2523
by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 2524
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 2525
find either the SuperHyperStable or the neutrosophic SuperHyperStable in those 2526
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 2527
5.1 Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 2528
SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel 2529
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (27), the SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted and 2530
featured. 2531
By using the Figure (27) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic 2532
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 2533
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 2534
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the 2535
SuperHyperModel (27), 2536
{{C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },
87/92
Figure 27. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperStable
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
88/92
Figure 28. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperStable
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
5.2 Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 2538
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel 2539
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (28), the SuperHyperMultipartite is highlighted and 2540
featured. 2541
By using the Figure (28) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic 2542
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 2543
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 2544
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 2545
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
{Z7 , W7 }},
6 Open Problems 2547
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 2548
The SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic SuperHyperStable are defined on a 2549
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 2550
Question 6.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 2551
recognitions? 2552
89/92
Question 6.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperStable and the 2553
neutrosophic SuperHyperStable? 2554
Question 6.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 2555
compute them? 2556
Question 6.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 2557
SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic SuperHyperStable? 2558
Problem 6.5. The SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic SuperHyperStable do a 2559
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperStable, 2560
are there else? 2561
Problem 6.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 2562
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 2563
Problem 6.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 2564
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 2565
7 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 2566
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 2567
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 2568
highlighted. 2569
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 2570
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 2571
SuperHyperStable. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 2572
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 2573
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 2574
neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, finds the convenient background to implement some 2575
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 2576
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 2577
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 2578
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 2579
SuperHyperStable, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. 2580
Some general results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperStable and the 2581
neutrosophic SuperHyperStable. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews 2582
have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled 2583
the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and 2584
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s 2585
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the 2586
cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded 2587
styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based 2588
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with 2589
the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperStable” 2590
in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme 2591
of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the 2592
Table (6), some limitations and advantages of this research are pointed out. 2593
References 2594
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2595
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 2596
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 2597
90/92
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperStable
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 2598
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 2599
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 2600
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 2601
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 2602
3. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 2603
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2604
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 2605
4. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 2606
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 2607
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 2608
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2609
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 2610
5. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2611
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 2612
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 2613
6. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 2614
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 2615
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 2616
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 2617
7. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 2618
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 2619
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 2620
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 2621
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 2622
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 2623
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2624
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 2625
9. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 2626
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2627
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 2628
10. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 2629
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 2630
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2631
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 2632
91/92
11. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 2633
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2634
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 2635
12. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 2636
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 2637
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 2638
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 2639
13. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 2640
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 2641
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 2642
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 2643
14. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 2644
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 2645
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 2646
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 2647
15. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 2648
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 2649
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 2650
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 2651
16. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 2652
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 2653
17. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 2654
(2016) 86-101. 2655
18. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 2656
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 2657
19. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 2658
92/92
View publication stats

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable On Cancer's Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

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

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable On Cancer's Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer's Recognition by Well-

Preprint · January 2023

198 PUBLICATIONS 712 CITATIONS

On Combinatorics View project

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition 2

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

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 10

SuperHyperStable and Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable. Two different types of 11

SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13

well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 14

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16

fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 17

officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 25

“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 26

Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some 27

avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues 28

questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a“SuperHyperStable” 30

I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 31

SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex to have 32

a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an 33

“δ−SuperHyperStable” is a maximal SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with 34

(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 36

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 37

Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 38

holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStable” is a 39

maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 40

neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 42

|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 43

The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 44

define a “neutrosophic” version of an SuperHyperStable. Since there’s more ways to get 46

type-results to make an SuperHyperStable more understandable. For the sake of having 47

neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of an 48

“SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by 49

position of labels to assign to the values. Assume an SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a 51

neutrosophic SuperHyperStable if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values 52

of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 53

The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 55

“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get 58

SuperHyperGraph based on an SuperHyperStable. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to 60

have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a 61

need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperStable, then it’s 62

officially called an “SuperHyperStable” but otherwise, it isn’t an SuperHyperStable. 63

are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on an 66

SuperHyperStable. For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, there’s a 67

need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic SuperHyperStable” and a 68

“neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 69

SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 72

Table holds. And an SuperHyperStable are redefined to an “neutrosophic 73

SuperHyperStable” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” 74

version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results 75

to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable more understandable. Assume a 76

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the 77

intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 78

SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 79

“neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 80

SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic 81

SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 82

holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic SuperHyperStable” where it’s the 83

maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from an SuperHyperStable.] 85

SuperHyperStable. A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the 86