Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

1
Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 2
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on 3
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 4
Henry Garrett 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 7
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 8
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, 9
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique . Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are 10
debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 11
SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 12
well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For 13
shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this 14
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 15
SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the 16
instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are 17
figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 18
“Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges 19
make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are 20
viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them are 21
individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all 22
officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called 23
“SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic 24
SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic 25
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 26
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some 27
avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of 28
some questions and some problems. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then a 29
“neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” Cn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 30
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 31
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 32
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a 33
SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−SuperHyperClique” is a maximal SuperHyperClique of 34
SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 35
expressions hold for the (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−SuperHyperClique” is a 39
maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperClique 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
second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 45
define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClique . Since there’s more ways to get 46
1/140
type-results to make SuperHyperClique more understandable. For the sake of having 47
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of 48
“SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 49
by 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 a SuperHyperClique . It’s redefined 51
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique 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 SuperHyperClique . 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 SuperHyperClique, then it’s 62
officially called “SuperHyperClique” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperClique . There 63
are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled 64
“SuperHyperClique ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 65
there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on 66
SuperHyperClique . For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, there’s a 67
need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” and “neutrosophic 68
SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 69
by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 70
the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 71
It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And 72
SuperHyperClique are redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” if the intended Table 73
holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 74
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic SuperHyperClique 75
more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 76
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 77
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 78
SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic 79
SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic 80
SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 81
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 82
SuperHyperClique” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all 83
SuperHyperClique amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 84
SuperHyperClique .] SuperHyperClique . A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s 85
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 86
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 87
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 88
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one 89
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 90
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 91
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 92
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 93
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 94
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 95
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one 96
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has 97
one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes 98
the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially 99
2/140
called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 100
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 101
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 102
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 103
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 104
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 105
the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 106
will be based on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the 107
definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic recognition of the 108
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 109
[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 SuperHyperClique or the strongest 120
SuperHyperClique in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 121
SuperHyperClique, called SuperHyperClique, and the strongest SuperHyperClique, 122
called neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, some general results are introduced. Beyond 123
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 124
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 125
any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but 126
literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it 127
doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic 128
SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed. 129
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, 130
Cancer’s Neutrosophic 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
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 147
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 148
3/140
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
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 164
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 165
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 166
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 167
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 168
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 169
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 170
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 171
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 172
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 173
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 174
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 175
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 176
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 177
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 178
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 179
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 180
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 181
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 182
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [7] by Henry 183
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 184
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 185
Beyond” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 186
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 187
” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 188
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 189
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 190
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 191
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 192
in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 193
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 194
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 195
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 196
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 197
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [13] by 198
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 199
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [14] by 200
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 201
4/140
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 202
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 203
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 204
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 205
(2022), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and 206
Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 207
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [17] by Henry 208
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 209
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 210
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2023), 211
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 212
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry 213
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 214
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 215
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 216
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 217
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 218
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 219
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 220
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 221
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 222
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 223
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 224
in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 225
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 226
in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to 227
Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 228
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [26] by Henry Garrett (2022), there 229
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 230
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 231
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 232
Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 233
than 2347 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 234
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 235
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 236
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 237
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 238
in Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 239
than 3048 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 240
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 241
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 242
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 243
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 244
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 245
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 246
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 247
2 Motivation and Contributions 248
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 249
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 250
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 251
5/140
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 252
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 253
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 254
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 255
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 256
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 257
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 258
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 259
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 260
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 261
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 262
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 263
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 264
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 265
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 266
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 267
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 268
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 269
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 270
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 271
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 272
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 273
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 274
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 275
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 276
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 277
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 278
formally called “ SuperHyperClique” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 279
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 280
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 281
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 282
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 283
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 284
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 285
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 286
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 287
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 288
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 289
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 290
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 291
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 292
either the optimal SuperHyperClique or the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in those 293
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 294
SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two 295
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 296
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 297
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 298
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 299
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 300
find the “ amount of SuperHyperClique” of either individual of cells or the groups of 301
cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 302
SuperHyperClique” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 303
6/140
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 304
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 305
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 306
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 307
SuperHyperClique” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” on “SuperHyperGraph” and 308
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to 309
define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion 310
with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to 311
make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some 312
results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, 313
“Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 314
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 315
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 316
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 317
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 318
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 319
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 320
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperClique and 321
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperClique” and 322
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 323
order to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and 324
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, 325
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, 326
titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 327
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 328
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 329
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 330
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 331
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 332
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 333
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 334
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 335
SuperHyperClique”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” 336
and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about 337
what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this 338
research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for 339
this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperClique”. The keyword of this 340
research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 341
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 342
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 343
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 344
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 345
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 346
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 347
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 348
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 349
3 Preliminaries 350
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 351
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 352
7/140
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [30],Definition 2.1,p.87). 353
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 354
+
]− 0, 1 [. 355
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [33],Definition 6,p.2). 356
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 3.3. 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 3.4. 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 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [32],Definition 357
3,p.291). 358
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 359
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 360
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 361
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 362
1, 2, . . . , n); 363
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 364
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 365
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 366
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 367
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 368
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 369
8/140
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );
P
(viii) i0 370
(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 . 371
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 372
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 373
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 374
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 375
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 376
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 377
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 378
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 379
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 380
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 381
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 382
(Ref. [32],Section 4,pp.291-292). 383
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 384
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 385
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 386
could be characterized as follow-up items. 387
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 388
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 389
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 390
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 391
HyperEdge; 392
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 393
SuperEdge; 394
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 395
SuperHyperEdge. 396
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 397
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 398
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [31], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 399
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 400
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 401
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 402
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 403
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 404
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 405
9/140
Definition 3.8. 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 3.9. 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 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 406
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 407
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 408
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 409
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 410
1, 2, . . . , n); 411
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 412
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 413
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 414
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 415
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 416
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 417
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 418
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 419
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 420
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 421
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 422
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 423
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 424
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 425
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 426
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 427
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 428
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 429
(Ref. [32],Section 4,pp.291-292). 430
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 431
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 432
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 433
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 435
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 436
10/140
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 437
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 438
HyperEdge; 439
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 440
SuperEdge; 441
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 442
SuperHyperEdge. 443
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 444
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 445
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 446
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 447
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 448
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to 449
have more understandable. 450
Definition 3.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 451
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 452
(i). It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 453
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 454
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 455
given SuperHyperEdges; 456
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 457
SuperHyperEdges; 458
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 459
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 460
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 461
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 462
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 463
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 464
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 465
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 466
common SuperVertex. 467
Definition 3.14. 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from 468
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 469
Vs if either of following conditions hold: 470
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 471
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
11/140
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 478
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 479
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 480
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 481
s). 482
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

A neutrosophic 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; 484
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 485
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 486
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called neutrosophic 487
SuperHyperPath . 488
Definition 3.16. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique). 489
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 490
(i) an extreme SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 491
N SHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 492
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 493
SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount 494
of extreme SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices 495
given by that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also 496
called an extreme (z, −)−SuperHyperClique extreme SuperHyperClique 497
C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme 498
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with 499
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 500
extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 501
an amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet 502
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an extreme 503
(−, x)−SuperHyperClique extreme SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an 504
extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet 505
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality 506
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 507
there’s an amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges amid x extreme 508
SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 509
12/140
SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an extreme (z, x)−SuperHyperClique 510
extreme SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 511
N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 512
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 513
SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z extreme 514
SuperHyperEdges amid x extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme 515
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the extreme extension 516
of the extreme notion of the extreme clique in the extreme graphs to the extreme 517
SuperHyperNotion of the extreme SuperHyperClique in the extreme 518
SuperHyperGraphs where in the extreme setting of the graphs, there’s an extreme 519
(1, 2)−SuperHyperClique since an extreme graph is an extreme SuperHyperGraph; 520
(ii) an neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 521
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 522
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 523
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 524
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of 525
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of neutrosophic 526
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 527
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an neutrosophic 528
(z, −)−SuperHyperClique neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an 529
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic 530
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 531
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z neutrosophic 533
SuperHyperEdge amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 534
that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s 535
also called an neutrosophic (−, x)−SuperHyperClique neutrosophic 536
SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 537
N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 538
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an 539
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 540
there’s an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic 541
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 542
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an neutrosophic 543
(z, x)−SuperHyperClique neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an 544
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic 545
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 546
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z neutrosophic 548
SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 549
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the 550
neutrosophic extension of the neutrosophic notion of the neutrosophic clique in 551
the neutrosophic graphs to the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion of the 552
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs where in 553
the neutrosophic setting of the graphs, there’s an neutrosophic 554
(1, 2)−SuperHyperClique since an neutrosophic graph is an extreme 555
SuperHyperGraph; 556
Proposition 3.17. An extreme clique in an extreme graph is an extreme 557
(1, 2)−SuperHyperClique in that extreme SuperHyperGraph. And reverse of that 558
statement doesn’t hold. 559
Proposition 3.18. A neutrosophic clique in a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic 560
13/140
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.24)
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
(1, 2)−SuperHyperClique in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. And reverse of that 561
statement doesn’t hold. 562
Proposition 3.19. Assume an extreme (x, z)−SuperHyperClique in an extreme 563
SuperHyperGraph. For all zi ≤ z, xi ≤ x, it’s an extreme (xi , zi )−SuperHyperClique in 564
that extreme SuperHyperGraph. 565
Proposition 3.20. Assume a neutrosophic (x, z)−SuperHyperClique in a neutrosophic 566
SuperHyperGraph. For all zi ≤ z, xi ≤ x, it’s a neutrosophic (xi , zi )−SuperHyperClique 567
in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 568
Definition 3.21. ((neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperClique). 569
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 570
(i) an δ−SuperHyperClique is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 571
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) 572
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 573
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (3.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (3.2)
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 574
Expression (3.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 575
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperClique is a maximal neutrosophic of 576
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 577
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 578
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 579
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (3.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (3.4)
The Expression (3.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 580
And the Expression (3.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 581
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 582
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to 583
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 584
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 585
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 586
Definition 3.22. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 587
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 588
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 589
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 590
understandable. 591
14/140
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.24)
Definition 3.23. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 592
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 593
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 594
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic neutrosophic 595
SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic 596
SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic 597
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) 598
holds. 599
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a SuperHyperClique. Since there’s 600
more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperClique more understandable. 601
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to 602
“redefine” the notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 603
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 604
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 605
Definition 3.24. Assume a SuperHyperClique. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 606
SuperHyperClique if the Table (3) holds. 607
4 neutrosophic SuperHyperClique 608
Example 4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 609
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 610
• On the Figure (1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic 611
SuperHyperClique, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty neutrosophic 612
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 613
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic 614
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 615
The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is neutrosophic isolated means that 616
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 617
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , isn’t contained in every given 618
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 619
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 620
15/140
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V4 }. The neutrosophic 621
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is the simple 622
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. The 623
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 624
{V1 , V2 , V4 }, is a neutrosophic 3-SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic 625
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 626
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 627
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 628
SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by the 629
{V1 , V2 , V4 }. There’re not only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 631
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 632
SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 633
the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes 634
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 635
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, doesn’t have less than three 636
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 637
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 638
SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 639
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple 640
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since 641
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 642
{V1 , V2 , V4 }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic 643
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 644
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 645
SuperHyperEdge for any z SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic 646
type-SuperHyperSet and it’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since it’s 647
SuperHyperEdge for any two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 650
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet. There isn’t only less than three neutrosophic 651
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 652
{V1 , V2 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, 653
is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 654
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, 655
doesn’t include only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected 656
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 657
the only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 658
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets 659
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, is only {V1 , V2 , V4 }. 660
• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperClique, is up. E1 661
and E3 SuperHyperClique are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop 662
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 663
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 664
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 665
an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given 666
SuperHyperClique. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 667
SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 668
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V4 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 669
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is the simple neutrosophic 670
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic 671
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is a 672
16/140
neutrosophic 3-SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic 673
• On the Figure (3), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperClique, is up. 709
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 710
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 711
namely, E4 . The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 712
SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 713
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V4 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 714
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is the simple neutrosophic 715
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is a 717
17/140
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperClique, is up. 754
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 755
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 756
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The following neutrosophic 757
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic 758
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }. 759
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 760
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 761
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 762
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is a neutrosophic 763
3-SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 764
N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 765
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }. There’re not only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside 770
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 771
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, doesn’t have less than 775
three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus 776
18/140
the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 777
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is the non-obvious simple 779
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 782
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 783
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 784
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for any z SuperHyperVertices given by that 785
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet and it’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. 786
Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 787
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 788
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for any two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given 789
by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet. There isn’t only less than three 790
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 791
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 792
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 793
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is 794
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, doesn’t include only less than 795
three SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 796
N SHG : (V, E). {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F } is an neutrosophic(2, 5)−SuperHyperClique. 797
{V4 , H} is an neutrosophic(2, −)−SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F } is an 798
neutrosophic(−, 5)−SuperHyperClique. As the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 799
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the 800
matter, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F } is a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique; since it has five 801
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with satisfying on the at least neutrosophic 802
conditions over both of the neutrosophicSuperHyperVertices and the neutrosophic 803
SuperHyperEdges. 804
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 806
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 807
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. 808
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 809
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is the simple neutrosophic 810
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is a 812
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }. There’re not only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 819
inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 820
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 821
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 822
SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the 823
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 824
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the 825
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic 826
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them 827
up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 828
19/140
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 829
the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 830
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is a neutrosophic 831
SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 832
N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 833
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for any z 834
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet and it’s an 835
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since it’s 836
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, 842
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 843
the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is the neutrosophic 844
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, doesn’t include only less than three 845
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 846
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 847
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique amid 848
those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 849
SuperHyperClique, is only {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 } in a connected neutrosophic 850
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the SuperHyperModel 851
N SHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 852
• On the Figure (6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperClique, is up.

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique.
{V5 , V6 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
{V5 , V6 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices given by the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’re only two neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique isn’t up. The obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, does has less than three SuperHyperVertices inside
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique isn’t up.
To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. But the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic
20/140
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for any z
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet and it’s an
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since it’s
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for any two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet. There is only less than three neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 }.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 }, isn’t up. The
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 }, does
includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, are only {V5 , V6 }, {V6 , V7 } in a connected
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a illustrated
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6). It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, are
{V5 , V15 }, {V8 , V9 }, {V7 , V8 }, {V5 , V6 }, {V6 , V7 }}.
• On the Figure (7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic 853
SuperHyperClique {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 } is up. There’s neither empty 854
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic 855
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic 856
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. 857
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is 861
a neutrosophic 3-SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic 862
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 878
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 879
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is a neutrosophic 880
21/140
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 892
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, 893
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, doesn’t include only 894
less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 895
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 896
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 897
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, is only {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 } in a 899
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of depicted 900
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (7). But 901
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }

{V4 , V, V6 , V7 , V13 }
are the only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 902
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 904
22/140
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }

{V4 , V, V6 , V7 , V13 }
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 955
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 956
• On the Figure (9), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperClique, is up.

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique.
{V5 , V6 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
{V5 , V6 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices given by the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’re only two neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique isn’t up. The obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, does has less than three SuperHyperVertices inside
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique isn’t up.
To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
23/140
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. But the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for any z
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet and it’s an
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since it’s
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for any two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet. There is only less than three neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 }.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 }, isn’t up. The
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 }, does
includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, are only {V5 , V6 }, {V6 , V7 } in a connected
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a illustrated
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6). It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, are
{V5 , V15 }, {V8 , V9 }, {V7 , V8 }, {V5 , V6 }, {V6 , V7 }}
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a messy 957
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (9). 958
24/140
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }

{V4 , V, V6 , V7 , V13 }
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1009
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected 1010
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1011
{V1 , V2 , V3 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1016
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1017
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1018
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a neutrosophic 1019
25/140
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, are only {V1 , V2 , V3 } and {V4 , V5 , V6 } in a 1055
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But also, the only 1056
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1060
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is a 1068
26/140
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1085
the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1086
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is a neutrosophic 1087
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1099
the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is the neutrosophic 1100
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, doesn’t include only less than three 1101
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) in highly-multiple-connected-style 1107
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (12) and it’s also, the only obvious simple 1108
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 1112
{V1 , V2 , V3 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1117
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1118
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1119
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a neutrosophic 1120
27/140
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But also, the only 1157
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1161
{V1 , V2 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 1166
{V1 , V2 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1167
SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1168
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for 1169
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic 1170
type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 1171
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 1172
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 neutrosophic 1173
SuperHyperVertices given by the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1174
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }. There’re only two neutrosophic 1175
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple 1177
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is a 1178
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic 1179
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1180
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, does has less than three SuperHyperVertices inside 1181
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple 1182
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique isn’t up. 1183
To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1184
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple neutrosophic 1185
28/140
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since the 1186
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, is 1187
a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic 1188
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 }. 1197
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 }, is up. The 1198
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 }, doesn’t 1200
include only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1201
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, are only {V1 , V2 } and {V1 , V3 }. But the 1205
only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1206
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, are only {V1 , V2 } and {V1 , V3 }. It’s noted 1208
that this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic graph 1209
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. 1210
{V1 , V2 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 1215
{V1 , V2 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1216
SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1217
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for 1218
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic 1219
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }. There’re only two neutrosophic 1224
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple 1226
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is a 1227
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic 1228
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1229
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, does has less than three SuperHyperVertices inside 1230
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple 1231
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique isn’t up. 1232
To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1233
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple neutrosophic 1234
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since the 1235
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, is 1236
29/140
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 }. 1246
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 }, is up. The 1247
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 }, doesn’t 1249
include only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1250
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, is only {V1 , V5 }. But the only obvious 1254
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique 1255
amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1256
SuperHyperVertices, are only 1257
{V1 , V2 },
{V2 , V3 },
{V3 , V4 },
{V4 , V6 },
{V5 , V1 }.
It’s noted that this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is a 1258
neutrosophic graph G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. In a 1259
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected 1260
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 1261
corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1266
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 is the 1267
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. 1268
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 1269
corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 is a neutrosophic 3-SuperHyperClique 1270
C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic 1271
SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 There’re not only 1276
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 1277
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is up. The 1278
SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two 1280
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1281
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 1282
30/140
doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 1283
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1284
the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 1285
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to the 1286
SuperHyperEdge E4 is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1287
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 is 1289
corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1300
SuperHyperClique, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 is up. The obvious 1301
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, 1302
corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1303
corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 doesn’t include only less than three 1304
SuperHyperClique, is only corresponded to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E4 1309
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the only 1310
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets, 1312
is only corresponded to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E4 in a connected 1313
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1314
31/140
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). In a connected neutrosophic 1367
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is 1368
featured On the Figure (17). 1369
32/140
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). In a connected neutrosophic 1422
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1423
33/140
34/140
Proposition 4.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1530
N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperClique. 1531
In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a 1532
SuperHyperClique is the cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z}. 1533
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1534
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a SuperHyperClique 1535
since neither amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor amount of 1536
SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the neutrosophic number of 1537
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one. Let us consider the 1538
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z}. This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1539
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to propose some amount of 1540
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for some amount of the neutrosophic 1541
35/140
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperClique in
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
36/140
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
37/140
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
38/140
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
39/140
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
40/140
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
41/140
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
42/140
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
43/140
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
44/140
the Example (4.1)

the Example (4.1)
45/140
SuperHyperVertices taken from the mentioned neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and it has 1542
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality amid those neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets 1543
but the minimum case of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality indicates that these 1544
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the neutrosophic lower bound in the 1545
term of neutrosophic sharpness. In other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1546
V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-triangle 1547
style is up but sometimes the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the 1548
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is free-triangle and it doesn’t make a contradiction to 1549
the supposition on the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1550
N SHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the 1551
connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst 1552
case, literally, V \ V \ {x, y, z}, is a SuperHyperClique. In other words, the least 1553
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a SuperHyperClique is the 1554
cardinality of V \ V \ {x, y, z}. Then we’ve lost some connected loopless neutrosophic 1555
SuperHyperClasses of the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled 1556
free-triangle. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some 1557
counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the 1558
graph titled path and cycle are well-known classes in that setting and they could be 1559
considered as the examples for the tight bound of V \ V \ {x, z}. Let V \ V \ {z} in 1560
mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at least two 1561
SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the principles of 1562
the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the condition is on the 1563
existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the SuperHyperVertices. In other 1564
words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the 1565
necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is 1566
withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by the necessity of the 1567
pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 1568
Proposition 4.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1569
Then the neutrosophic number of SuperHyperClique has, the least cardinality, the lower 1570
sharp bound for cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z} if there’s a 1571
SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1572
Proof. The neutrosophic structure of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique decorates the 1573
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have received complete neutrosophic connections so as 1574
this neutrosophic style implies different versions of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with 1575
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1576
are spotlight. The lower neutrosophic bound is to have the minimum neutrosophic 1577
groups of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have perfect neutrosophic connections inside 1578
and the outside of this neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the 1579
connectedness of the used neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its neutrosophic 1580
properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no neutrosophic 1581
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no 1582
neutrosophic connection. Furthermore, the neutrosophic existence of one neutrosophic 1583
SuperHyperVertex has no neutrosophic effect to talk about the neutrosophic 1584
SuperHyperClique. Since at least two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices involve to make 1585
a title in the neutrosophic background of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1586
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1587
but at least two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices make the neutrosophic version of 1588
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the neutrosophic setting of non-obvious 1589
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1590
It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as neutrosophic adjective for 1591
the initial neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no neutrosophic appearance 1592
of the loop neutrosophic version of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this 1593
46/140
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The neutrosophic adjective “loop” 1594
on the basic neutrosophic framework engages one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it 1595
never happens in this neutrosophic setting. With these neutrosophic bases, on a 1596
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge thus 1597
there’s at least a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic cardinality two. 1598
Thus, a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic cardinality at least two. 1599
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1600
isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique since either the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1601
is an obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no 1602
neutrosophic usage of this neutrosophic framework and even more there’s no 1603
neutrosophic connection inside or the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and 1604
as its consequences, there’s a neutrosophic contradiction with the term “neutrosophic 1605
SuperHyperClique” since the maximum neutrosophic cardinality never happens for this 1606
neutrosophic style of the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no 1607
neutrosophic connection inside as mentioned in first neutrosophic case in the forms of 1608
drawback for this selected neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Let V \ V \ {x, y, z} comes up. 1609
This neutrosophic case implies having the neutrosophic style of on-triangle neutrosophic 1610
style on the every neutrosophic elements of this neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, 1611
the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1612
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any neutrosophic amount of the 1613
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are on-triangle neutrosophic style. The neutrosophic 1614
cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum in comparison to 1615
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x} but the lower neutrosophic bound is up. 1616
Thus the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 1617
ends up the neutrosophic discussion. The first neutrosophic term refers to the 1618
neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough 1619
since there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperClass of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has 1620
no on-triangle neutrosophic style amid any amount of its neutrosophic 1621
SuperHyperVertices. This neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1622
proposes a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1623
such that there’s neutrosophic amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges involving 1624
these two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The neutrosophic cardinality of this 1625
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the neutrosophic case is occurred in 1626
the minimum neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1627
V \ V \ {z, x} has the maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that V \ V \ {z, x} 1628
contains some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s amount neutrosophic 1629
SuperHyperEdges for amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the 1630
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x}. It means that the neutrosophic 1631
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z, x}. is a neutrosophic 1632
SuperHyperClique for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used neutrosophic 1633
background in the neutrosophic terms of worst neutrosophic case and the lower 1634
neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the 1635
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are neutrosophic free-triangle. 1636
Proposition 4.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1637
If a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the 1638
neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is at least z. It’s 1639
straightforward that the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is 1640
at least the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1641
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with 1642
the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to 1643
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in some cases but the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with 1644
the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 1645
47/140
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. 1646
Proof. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at
least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in a neutrosophic
SuperHyperClique. Those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in
a neutrosophic style-SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s a
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge between the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices Zi and
Zj . The other definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in the terms of
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
This definition coincides with the definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique but
with slightly differences in the maximum neutrosophic cardinality amid those
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|neutrosophic cardinality ,
z
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Let

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E. Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
But with the slightly differences, 1647
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
Thus E is a neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperClique where E is fixed that means Ex = E. 1648
for all neutrosophic intended SuperHyperVertices but in a neutrosophic 1649
SuperHyperClique, Ex could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a 1650
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). If a neutrosophic 1651
SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic 1652
cardinality of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is at least z. It’s straightforward that 1653
the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is at least the 1654
maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic 1655
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 1656
maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to 1657
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in some cases but the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1658
with the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 1659
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a neutrosophic 1660
SuperHyperClique. 1661
48/140
Proposition 4.5. Assume a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1662
N SHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than three 1663
distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic 1664
quasi-SuperHyperClique. In other words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic 1665
SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an 1666
neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperClique. 1667
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no SuperHyperEdges. But the non-obvious 1668
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses some 1669
issues about the neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 1670
remarks on the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1671
such that there’s amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of neutrosophic 1672
SuperHyperVertices taken from that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1673
SuperHyperVertices but this neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1674
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or 1675
it doesn’t have maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 1676
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at 1677
least two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a neutrosophic 1678
quasi-SuperHyperClique where the neutrosophic completion of the neutrosophic 1679
incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, a neutrosophic embedded SuperHyperClique. 1680
The SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet 1681
coincide. In the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the 1682
maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1683
SuperHyperSets have the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1684
neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1685
are included in the minimum neutrosophic style of the embedded neutrosophic 1686
SuperHyperClique. The interior types of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1687
deciders. Since the neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by 1688
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise 1689
and more formal, the perfect connections inside the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet pose 1690
the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Thus neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices 1691
could be used only in one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in neutrosophic 1692
SuperHyperRelation with the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that 1693
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, 1694
there’s the usage of exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more 1695
connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than 1696
the title “interior”. One neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. 1697
Thus, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 1698
one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 1699
implying the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperClique with 1700
the exclusion of the exclusion of two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and with other 1701
terms, the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique with the inclusion of two neutrosophic 1702
SuperHyperVertices is a neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperClique. To sum them up, in a 1703
connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), there’s only 1704
one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior neutrosophic 1705
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperClique. In other 1706
words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct 1707
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperClique. 1708
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1709
N SHG : (V, E). The all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1710
neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperClique if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1711
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, the two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1712
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all. 1713
49/140
Proof. The main definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique has two titles. a 1714
neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperClique and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1715
neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-styles. For any 1716
neutrosophic number, there’s a neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperClique with that 1717
quasi-maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 1718
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded neutrosophic 1719
SuperHyperGraph, then the neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1720
collection of all the neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperCliques for all neutrosophic numbers 1721
less than its neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1722
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1723
neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperClique, again and more in the operations of collecting all 1724
the neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperCliques acted on the all possible used formations of 1725
the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one neutrosophic number. This 1726
neutrosophic number is considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1727
quasi-SuperHyperCliques. Let zneutrosophic Number , Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1728
Gneutrosophic SuperHyperClique be a neutrosophic number, a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1729
and a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Then 1730
[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class = {Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet = Gneutrosophic SuperHyperClique ,
|Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality
= zneutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is 1731
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1732
Gneutrosophic SuperHyperClique ∈
∪zneutrosophic Number [zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class =
∪zneutrosophic Number {Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1733
technical definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. 1734
Gneutrosophic SuperHyperClique =
{S ∈
= zneutrosophic Number |
=
max zneutrosophic Number }.
[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the neutrosophic 1735
50/140
SuperHyperClique poses the upcoming expressions. 1736
{S ∈
∪zneutrosophic Number [zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class |
=
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1737
{S ∈
=
max zneutrosophic Number = 2}.
And then, 1738
{S ∈
|Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality = 2}.
To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1739
= 2}.
1740
{S ∈
= 2}.
51/140
1741
{S ∈
=
1742
{S ∈
Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1743
“neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1744
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its neutrosophic 1745
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1746
another name for “neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperClique” but, precisely, it’s the 1747
generalization of “neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperClique” since “neutrosophic 1748
Quasi-SuperHyperClique” happens “neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” in a neutrosophic 1749
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “neutrosophic 1750
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” in a 1751
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since 1752
there are some ambiguities about the neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. 1753
To get orderly keywords, the terms, “neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, 1754
“neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperClique”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” are up. 1755
Thus, let zneutrosophic Number , Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1756
Gneutrosophic SuperHyperClique be a neutrosophic number, a neutrosophic 1757
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique and the new terms are 1758
up. 1759
∪zneutrosophic Number {Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |neutrosophic Cardinality
=
1760
{Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈
|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality
=
52/140
=
1761
|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality =
And with go back to initial structure, 1762
= 2}.
1763
= 2}.
1764
=
1765
|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality = 2}.
Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the all interior 1766
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperClique if 1767
53/140
for any of them, and any of other corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, the 1768
two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic 1769
SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all. 1770
N SHG : (V, E). The any neutrosophic SuperHyperClique only contains all interior 1772
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 1773
the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible 1774
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic 1775
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception but everything is possible about 1776
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1777
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Let a 1778
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge N SHE has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices r. 1779
Consider all neutrosophic numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that 1780
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct neutrosophic 1781
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1782
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique 1783
with the least cardinality, the lower sharp neutrosophic bound for neutrosophic 1784
cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The 1785
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VN SHE \ {z} is a 1786
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1788
in common but it isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t have 1789
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1790
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 1791
have a some SuperHyperVertices in common. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1792
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VN SHE ∪ {z} is the maximum neutrosophic 1793
cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1794
it isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t do the neutrosophic 1795
procedure such that such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1796
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in common [there are at least one neutrosophic 1797
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic 1798
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), an neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1799
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1800
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1801
There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended neutrosophic 1802
SuperHyperSet, VN SHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1803
Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, VN SHE is up. The obvious simple 1804
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, VN SHE , is a 1805
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VN SHE , includes only all neutrosophic 1806
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of neutrosophic pairs are titled 1807
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1808
N SHG : (V, E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1809
SuperHyperVertices VN SHE , is the 1810
maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a neutrosophic 1811
SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in common. Thus, a 1813
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The any neutrosophic 1814
SuperHyperClique only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all 1815
exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 1816
SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic 1817
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with 1818
54/140
no exception but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods 1819
and neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1820
Remark 4.8. The words “ neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” and “neutrosophic 1821
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum neutrosophic type-style. In other 1822
words, they either refer to the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperNumber or to the 1823
minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperNumber and the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet either 1824
with the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or with the minimum 1825
neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. 1826
N SHG : (V, E). Consider a neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then a neutrosophic 1828
SuperHyperClique has only one neutrosophic representative in. 1829
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1830
a neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (4.7), the 1831
neutrosophic results are up. Thus on a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1832
N SHG : (V, E), and in a neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating, a neutrosophic 1833
SuperHyperClique has only one neutrosophic representative in. 1834
5 Results on neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 1835
The previous neutrosophic approaches apply on the upcoming neutrosophic results on 1836
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1837
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). 1838
Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique-style with the maximum neutrosophic 1839
SuperHyperCardinality is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic 1840
SuperHyperVertices. 1841
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). 1842
Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior 1843
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions in the form of 1844
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 1845
SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 1846
the neutrosophic unique SuperHyperEdges. a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique has the 1847
neutrosophic number of all the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices without any 1848
minus on SuperHyperNeighborhoods. 1849
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Assume a neutrosophic

SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Then every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at least one neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
have the eligibles to be contained in a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Those
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a neutrosophic
style-SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
55/140
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
E
The main definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique has two titles. a 1864
56/140

{S ∈
=
{S ∈
=
{S ∈
=
57/140
And then, 1888
{S ∈
= 2}.
1890
{S ∈
= 2}.
1891
{S ∈
=
1892
{S ∈
58/140
up. 1909
=
1910
=
1911
=
1912
59/140
= 2}.
1914
= 2}.
1915
=
1916
SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all. Assume a connected 1921
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1922
N SHE has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all neutrosophic 1923
numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic 1924
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct neutrosophic 1925
60/140
Example 5.3. In the Figure (21), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1965
N SHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1966
corresponded to E5 , VE5 , of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1967
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1968
(21), is the SuperHyperClique. 1969
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). 1970
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions on the form of 1972
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic 1973
SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. a 1974
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic 1975
SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality. 1976
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Assume a neutrosophic

{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
61/140
Figure 21. a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic
SuperHyperClique in the Example (5.3)

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
E
62/140

63/140
{S ∈
=
{S ∈
=
{S ∈
=
And then, 2015
{S ∈
= 2}.
64/140
2017
{S ∈
= 2}.
2018
{S ∈
=
2019
{S ∈
up. 2036
=
65/140
2037
=
2038
=
2039
= 2}.
2041
= 2}.
66/140
2042
=
2043
67/140
Figure 22. a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (5.5)
Example 5.5. In the Figure (22), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2092
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2093
corresponded to E8 , VE8 , by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic 2094
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in 2095
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22), corresponded to E5 , VE8 , is the neutrosophic 2096
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). 2098
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, not neutrosophic excluding the neutrosophic 2100
SuperHyperCenter, with only all neutrosophic exceptions in the neutrosophic form of 2101
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, 2102
neutrosophic including only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. a neutrosophic 2103
SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the 2104
one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 2105
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Assume a neutrosophic

68/140
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
E
69/140

{S ∈
=
70/140
{S ∈
=
{S ∈
=
And then, 2144
{S ∈
= 2}.
2146
{S ∈
= 2}.
71/140
2147
{S ∈
=
2148
{S ∈
up. 2165
=
2166
=
72/140
=
2167
= 2}.
2169
= 2}.
2170
=
2171
73/140
Example 5.7. In the Figure (23), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 2220
N SHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2221
by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic 2222
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), in 2223
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), , corresponded to E5 , VE5 , is the neutrosophic 2224
74/140
Figure 23. a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (5.7)
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2226
N SHB : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 2227
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with no any 2228
neutrosophic exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled 2229
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with only no exception. a neutrosophic 2230
SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic maximum number of on neutrosophic cardinality 2231
of the first SuperHyperPart plus neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. 2232
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Assume

a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. Then every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at least one
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in a neutrosophic
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
75/140
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
E
76/140

{S ∈
=
{S ∈
=
{S ∈
=
77/140
And then, 2271
{S ∈
= 2}.
2273
{S ∈
= 2}.
2274
{S ∈
=
2275
{S ∈
78/140
up. 2292
=
2293
=
2294
=
2295
79/140
= 2}.
2297
= 2}.
2298
=
2299
80/140
Example 5.9. In the neutrosophic Figure (24), the connected neutrosophic 2348
SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic 2349
featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 2350
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 2351
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 2352
SuperHyperModel (24), , corresponded to E6 , VE6 , is the neutrosophic 2353
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 2355
N SHM : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 2356
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no 2357
neutrosophic exception in the neutrosophic form of interior neutrosophic 2358
SuperHyperVertices from a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the 2359
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled 2360
“SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than one of them. a 2361
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic maximum number on all the 2362
neutrosophic summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of the all neutrosophic 2363
SuperHyperParts form one SuperHyperEdges not plus any. 2364
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E).

Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic
81/140
Figure 24. a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-
sophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in the Example (5.9)

{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
82/140
E

83/140
{S ∈
=
{S ∈
=
{S ∈
=
And then, 2403
{S ∈
= 2}.
84/140
2405
{S ∈
= 2}.
2406
{S ∈
=
2407
{S ∈
up. 2424
=
85/140
2425
=
2426
=
2427
= 2}.
2429
= 2}.
86/140
2430
=
2431
87/140
Figure 25. a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in the Example (5.11)
Example 5.11. In the Figure (25), the connected neutrosophic 2480
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), is highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 2481
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic 2482
result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic 2483
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), , corresponded to E3 , VE3 , in the 2484
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. 2485
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2486
N SHW : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 2487
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, not excluding the 2488
neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in the form of interior 2489
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with not the 2490
exclusion. a neutrosophic SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic maximum number on 2491
all the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges have common 2492
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors inside for a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the 2493
not exclusion. 2494
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Assume a

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic
88/140
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
E
89/140

{S ∈
=
90/140
{S ∈
=
{S ∈
=
And then, 2533
{S ∈
= 2}.
2535
{S ∈
= 2}.
91/140
2536
{S ∈
=
2537
{S ∈
up. 2554
=
2555
=
92/140
=
2556
= 2}.
2558
= 2}.
2559
=
2560
93/140
Example 5.13. In the neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected neutrosophic 2609
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 2610
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 2611
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2612
N SHW : (V, E), , corresponded to E5 , VE6 , in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 2613
(26), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. 2614
94/140
Figure 26. a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-
sophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (5.13)
6 General neutrosophic Results 2615
For the SuperHyperClique, neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, and the neutrosophic 2616
SuperHyperClique, some general results are introduced. 2617
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is “redefined” on the 2618
positions of the alphabets. 2619
Corollary 6.2. Assume neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. Then 2620
N eutrosophic SuperHyperClique =
{theSuperHyperCliqueof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperClique. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to 2621
assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 2622
Corollary 6.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 2623
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic SuperHyperClique and 2624
SuperHyperClique coincide. 2625
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 2627
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique if and only if it’s a SuperHyperClique. 2628
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 2630
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 2631
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 2632
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is its 2633
SuperHyperClique and reversely. 2634
Corollary 6.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 2635
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 2636
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is its 2637
SuperHyperClique and reversely. 2638
95/140
Corollary 6.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 2639
SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined. 2640
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 2641
its neutrosophic SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperClique 2642
isn’t well-defined. 2643
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its 2646
SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined. 2647
Corollary 6.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 2648
SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperClique is well-defined. 2649
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2650
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its 2651
SuperHyperClique is well-defined. 2652
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its 2655
SuperHyperClique is well-defined. 2656
Proposition 6.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 2657
is 2658
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2659
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2660
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2661
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2662
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2663
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2664
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 2665
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 2666
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2667
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following 2668
statements are equivalent. 2669
∀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 SuperHyperClique since the following 2670
96/140
∀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.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the 2672
following statements are equivalent. 2673
∀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 SuperHyperClique since the following 2674
∀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 SuperHyperClique since the following 2676
∀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 SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 2678
equivalent. 2679
∀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.
2680
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 2681
∅ is 2682
97/140
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2683
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2684
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2685
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2686
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2687
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2688
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 2689
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 2690
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2691
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following statements 2692
are equivalent. 2693
∀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 SuperHyperClique since the following 2694
∀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 SuperHyperClique since the following 2696
∀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 SuperHyperClique since the following statements 2698
∀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.
98/140
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following 2700
∀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.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following 2702
∀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.
2704
Proposition 6.16. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 2705
independent SuperHyperSet is 2706
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2707
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2708
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2709
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2710
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2711
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2712
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 2713
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 2714
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique 2716
since the following statements are equivalent. 2717
∀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 2718
99/140
SuperHyperClique since the following statements are equivalent. 2719
∀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 2720
∀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 SuperHyperClique 2722
since the following statements are equivalent. 2723
∀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 2724
∀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 2726
∀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.
2728
Proposition 6.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 2729
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 2730
100/140
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2731
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2732
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2733
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2734
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2735
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2736
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2737
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2738
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 2739
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 2740
SuperHyperClique. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 2741
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 2742
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2743
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 2744
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2745
∀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 2746
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 2747
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 2748
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. This segment 2749
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 2750
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 2751
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 2752
∀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.
101/140
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 2755
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 2756
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2757
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2758
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 2759
Proposition 6.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2760
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 2761
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2762
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2763
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2764
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2765
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2766
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2767
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2768
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 2769
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 2770
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 2773
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2774
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 2775
∀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 2777
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 2778
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2780
Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2781
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 2784
102/140
(i) : the SuperHyperClique; 2785
(ii) : the SuperHyperClique; 2786
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperClique; 2787
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperClique; 2788
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperClique; 2789
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperClique. 2790
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2791
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2792
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2793
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 2794
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 2797
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2798
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 2799
∀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.
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 2802
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 2803
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. This segment 2804
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 2805
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 2806
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 2807
∀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.
103/140
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 2810
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2812
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2813
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 2816
(i) : the dual SuperHyperClique; 2817
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperClique; 2818
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperClique; 2819
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperClique; 2820
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperClique; 2821
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperClique. 2822
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2823
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 2825
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 2826
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 2829
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2830
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 2831
∀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 2833
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform 2834
SuperHyperWheel. 2835
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2837
Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2838
104/140
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 2841
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 2842
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 2843
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 2844
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2848
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2849
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2850
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 2851
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 2852
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2853
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 2854
∀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 SuperHyperClique 2855
in a given SuperHyperStar. 2856
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 2857
SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2858
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 2860
SuperHyperClique and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost 2862
equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2863
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 2865
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 2866

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Thus 2868
O(ESHG)
it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2869
105/140
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 2873
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 2874
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 2875
is a 2876
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2880
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2881
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2882
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 2883
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 2884
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has 2885
either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 2886
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique in a 2887
given SuperHyperStar. 2888
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 2889
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 2890
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has no 2891
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2892
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 2894
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 2895
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 2896
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has no 2897
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2898
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar 2900
nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 2901
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s an 2903
δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2904
106/140
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 2908
number of 2909
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2913
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2914
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2915
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 2916
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 2917
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2918
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 2921
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2922
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 2923
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2927
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 2929
SuperHyperClique and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost 2931
equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2932
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 2934
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 2935
107/140
O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Thus 2937
O(ESHG)
it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2938
Proposition 6.24. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 2940
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 2941
(iv) : SuperHyperClique; 2945
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2946
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2947
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2948
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some 2949
SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 2950
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
and number of connected component is |V − S|. 2952
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a dual 2954
1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2955
Proposition 6.25. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 2957
number is at most O(ESHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 2958
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 2959
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 2960
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2961
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following statements 2962
∀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.
108/140
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 2964
equivalent. 2965
∀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 SuperHyperClique since the following 2966
∀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.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following statements 2968
∀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 SuperHyperClique since the following 2970
∀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 SuperHyperClique since the following 2972
∀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 SuperHyperClique and V is the biggest 2974
SuperHyperSet in N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and 2975
the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 2976
109/140
Proposition 6.26. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 2977
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2978
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 2979
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 2983
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2985
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2986
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 2987
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2988
∀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 SuperHyperClique in 2989
a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 +1 2990
and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting 2991
t>
2
of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 2992
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2993
∀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 2996
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 2997
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2998
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 2999
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3000
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3001
∀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 3004
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 3007
t>
2
110/140
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3009
∀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(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 3012
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3015
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3017
∀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 3020
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique in a given 3021
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 3022
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 3023
t>
2
dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3025
∀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 3028
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique in a given 3029
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 3030
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 3031
t>
2
dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet 3034
in the setting of dual 3035
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 3039
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 3040
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3041
111/140
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3042
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3043
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following 3045
∀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 3047
in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3048
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following 3049
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3052
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the 3053
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3056
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following 3057
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3060
112/140
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the following 3061
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3064
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique since the 3065
∀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 3068
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 3071
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) 3073
and the neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 3074
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 3078
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 3079
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3080
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3081
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 3082
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3083
SuperHyperClique. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, 3084
suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 3085
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3086
∀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.
113/140
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3087
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperCycle. 3088
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3089
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 3091
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3092
∀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.
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperPath. 3094
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3095
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 3097
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3098
∀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.
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperWheel. 3100
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3102
Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3103
Thus the number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 3105
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3106
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 3109
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3111
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

114/140
(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half 3119
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3120
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 3121
∀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 3124
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
in a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3127
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 3128
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique and they are chosen from different 3129
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 3130
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3131
∀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 3132
SuperHyperClique in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 3133
SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 3134

O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3136
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 3137
Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3140
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 3141
t>
2
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the N SHGs : (V, E) 3143
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 3144
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 3145
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 3146
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 3147
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 3148
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, N SHGs : (V, E), are 3149
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 3150
115/140
Proposition 6.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 3151
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 3152
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 3153
(ii) vx ∈ E. 3154
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3155
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, 3156
∀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 3157
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, 3158
∀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.
3159
Proposition 6.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 3160
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, then 3161
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 3162
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 3163
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, either 3165
∀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 3166
∀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. 3167
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, either 3169
∀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)
116/140
or 3170
∀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. 3171
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 3172
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 3173
number. 3174
Proposition 6.34. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3175
Then 3176
(i) Γ ≤ O; 3177
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 3178
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3179
S = V. 3180
∀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 SuperHyperClique. For all SuperHyperSets 3181
of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 3182
S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So 3183
for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 3184
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 3185
∀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 SuperHyperClique. For all SuperHyperSets 3186
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 3187
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all 3188
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all 3189
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 3190
Proposition 6.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3191
which is connected. Then 3192
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 3193
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3194
117/140
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3195
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3196
∀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 SuperHyperClique. For all 3197
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 3198
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 3199
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 3200
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 3201
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3202
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3203
∀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 SuperHyperClique. For all 3204
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 3205
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3206
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 3207
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 3208
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3209
Proposition 6.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 3210
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3211
SuperHyperClique; 3212
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3213
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3214
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 3215
a dual SuperHyperClique. 3216
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 3217
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3218
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 })|
118/140
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. If 3219
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 3220
∃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 3221
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 3222
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3224
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3225
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 3226
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 3227
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3228
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3229
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 6.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 3235
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 3236
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 3237
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 3238
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3239
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 3240
dual SuperHyperClique. 3241
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 3242
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3243
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 })|
119/140
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. If 3244
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 3245
∃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 3246
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3247
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3250
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3251
SuperHyperClique. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 3252
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 6.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 3259
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3260
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 3262
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3263
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 3264
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 3265
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 3267
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3268
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 })|
120/140
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. If 3269
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 3270
∃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 3271
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3272
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3275
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3276
SuperHyperClique. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 3277
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 6.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 3284
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3285
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3287
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3288
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 3289
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 3291
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 })|
121/140
∃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 3299
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 3300
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 3301
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3302
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3303
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 6.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 3309
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperClique; 3310
(ii) Γ = 1; 3311
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 3312
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperClique. 3313
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 3314
∀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})|
122/140
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. If 3315
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3316
∃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 SuperHyperClique. It induces 3317
S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3318
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s 3320
enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Suppose 3321
N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 3322
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3323
Proposition 6.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 3324
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 3325
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 3326
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 3327
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 3328
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 3329
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3330
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 3331

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 3332
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 3333
∀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 3334
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. If 3335

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 3336
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 3337
∀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 )|
123/140
or 3338
∀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 3339
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3340
6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a 3341
dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3342
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 3343
Proposition 6.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 3344
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3345
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 3347
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 3348
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3349
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 3351

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 3352
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 SuperHyperClique. If 3353
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3354
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 3355
bn c+1
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {vi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3356
Proposition 6.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 3359
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 3360
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 3361
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 3362
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3363
124/140
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 3365
Thus 3366
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 SuperHyperClique. If 3367
n
b c bn
2c
S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3368
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
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3370
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 3373
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 3374
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3375
SuperHyperClique for N SHF; 3376
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 3377
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 3378
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 3379
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3380
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 3381
∀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 SuperHyperClique for 3382
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3383
∃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 SuperHyperClique for 3384
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 3385
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3386
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique 3388
for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 3389
125/140
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) 3390
is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 3391
∀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 SuperHyperClique for 3392
N SHF : (V, E). 3393
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 3394
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 3395
SuperHyperSet. Then 3396
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3397
SuperHyperClique for N SHF; 3398
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 3399
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 3400
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperClique for 3401
N SHF : (V, E). 3402
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 3403
Thus 3404
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 SuperHyperClique for 3405
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 3406
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
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 3408
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 3411
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 3412
SuperHyperSet. Then 3413
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique 3414
for N SHF : (V, E); 3415
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 3416
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 3417
S={vi }i=1
126/140
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperClique for 3418
N SHF : (V, E). 3419
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 3420
Thus 3421
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 SuperHyperClique for 3422
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3423
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
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 3425
Then following statements hold; 3429
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 3430
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 3431
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 3433
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive 3434
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 3437
SuperHyperClique. Then 3438
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3439
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 3441
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3443
127/140
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 3446
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 3447
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 3449
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 3450
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 3453
∀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 SuperHyperClique. By S is an 3455
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique and S is a dual 3456
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 3457
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 3460
∀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 SuperHyperClique. By S is an 3462
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique and S is a dual 3463
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 3464
Proposition 6.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] 3466
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 3467
statements hold; 3468
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3471
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 3473
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3475
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3476
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3477
SuperHyperGraph. Then 3478
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.
128/140
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3479
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3480
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 SuperHyperClique. 3482
(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3483
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3485
(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3486
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3488
Proposition 6.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] 3489
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 3490
statements hold; 3491
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3494
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 3496
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3498
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3499
∀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
129/140
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Then 3503
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3505
∀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 SuperHyperClique. Then 3507
∀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.
3508
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3510
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 3511
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3514
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 3516
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3519
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Then 3521
∀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
130/140
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Then 3523
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3525
∀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 SuperHyperClique. Then 3527
∀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.
3528
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3530
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 3531
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3534
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is 3536
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique; 3537
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3539
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 3541
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 SuperHyperClique. 3548
∀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 SuperHyperClique. 3551
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 3553
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3555
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3557
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3559
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. Then 3564
∀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 SuperHyperClique. Then 3566
∀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.
132/140
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperClique. 3568
∀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 SuperHyperClique. Then 3570
∀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.
3571
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 3573
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3575
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3577
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3579
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 3584
∀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.
133/140
∀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.
7 neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 3595
neutrosophic Recognition 3596
The cancer is the neutrosophic disease but the neutrosophic model is going to figure out 3597
what’s going on this neutrosophic phenomenon. The special neutrosophic case of this 3598
neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 3599
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 3600
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The neutrosophic recognition of the 3601
cancer could help to find some neutrosophic treatments for this neutrosophic disease. 3602
In the following, some neutrosophic steps are neutrosophic devised on this disease. 3603
Step 1. (neutrosophic Definition) The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 3604
the long-term neutrosophic function. 3605
Step 2. (neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 3606
neutrosophic model [it’s called neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 3607
neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 3608
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 3609
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 3610
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 3611
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 3612
happened and what’s done. 3613
Step 3. (neutrosophic Model) There are some specific neutrosophic models, which 3614
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general neutrosophic models. 3615
The moves and the neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 3616
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic 3617
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 3618
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 3619
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique or the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in those 3620
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 3621
8 Case 1: The Initial neutrosophic Steps Toward 3622
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 3623
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 3624
Step 4. (neutrosophic Solution) In the neutrosophic Figure (27), the neutrosophic 3625
SuperHyperBipartite is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 3626
By using the neutrosophic Figure (27) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic 3627
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 3628
134/140
Figure 27. a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperClique
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 3629
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 3630
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 3631
SuperHyperModel (27), corresponded to E3 , VE3 , is the neutrosophic 3632
9 Case 2: The Increasing neutrosophic Steps 3634
Toward neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 3635
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 3636
Step 4. (neutrosophic Solution) In the neutrosophic Figure (28), the neutrosophic 3637
SuperHyperMultipartite is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 3638
By using the neutrosophic Figure (28) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic 3639
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 3640
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 3641
previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 3642
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), , corresponded to E6 , 3643
VE6 , in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the neutrosophic 3644
135/140
Figure 28. a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
136/140
10 Open Problems 3646
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 3647
The SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique are defined on a 3648
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 3649
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 3650
recognitions? 3651
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperClique and 3652
the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique? 3653
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 3654
compute them? 3655
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 3656
SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique? 3657
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique do a 3658
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperClique, 3659
are there else? 3660
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 3661
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 3662
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 3663
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 3664
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 3665
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 3666
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 3667
highlighted. 3668
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 3669
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 3670
SuperHyperClique. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 3671
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 3672
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 3673
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique, finds the convenient background to implement some 3674
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 3675
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 3676
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 3677
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 3678
SuperHyperClique, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. 3679
Some general results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperClique and the 3680
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews 3681
have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled 3682
the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and 3683
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s 3684
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the 3685
cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded 3686
styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based 3687
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with 3688
the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperClique” 3689
in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme 3690
of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the 3691
Table (6), some limitations and advantages of this research are pointed out. 3692
137/140
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperClique
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
References 3693
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3694
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 3695
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 3696
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 3697
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 3698
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3699
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3700
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3701
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3702
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3703
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3704
(2022) 242-263. 3705
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3706
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3707
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3708
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3709
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3710
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3711
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3712
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3713
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3714
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3715
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3716
6. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3717
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3718
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3719
7. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3720
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3721
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3722
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3723
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3724
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3726
138/140
9. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3727
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3728
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3729
10. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3730
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3731
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 3732
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3733
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3735
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3736
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3737
12. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3738
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3739
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3740
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3741
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3742
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3743
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3744
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3745
14. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3746
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3747
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3748
15. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3749
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3750
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3751
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3752
16. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3753
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3754
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3755
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3756
17. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3757
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3758
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3759
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 3760
18. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3761
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3762
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3763
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3764
19. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3765
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3766
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 3767
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3769
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3770
139/140
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3771
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3772
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3773
22. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3774
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3776
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3777
23. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3778
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3779
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3780
24. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3781
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3782
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3783
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3784
25. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3785
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3786
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3787
26. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3788
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3789
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3790
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3791
27. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3792
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3793
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3794
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3795
28. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3796
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3797
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3798
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3799
29. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 3800
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 3801
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 3802
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 3803
30. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 3804
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 3805
31. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 3806
(2016) 86-101. 3807
32. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 3808
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 3809
33. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 3810
140/140

Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

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

Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 2

Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on 3

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

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, 9

Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique . Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are 10

SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 12

SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 15

“SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic 24

SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic 25

to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some 27

some questions and some problems. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then a 29

“neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” Cn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 30

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 31

SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 32

SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a 33

SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−SuperHyperClique” is a maximal SuperHyperClique of 34

SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 35

expressions hold for the (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−SuperHyperClique” is a 39

maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperClique 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

second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 45

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

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

“SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 49

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

neutrosophic SuperHyperClique 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 SuperHyperClique . 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 SuperHyperClique, then it’s 62

officially called “SuperHyperClique” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperClique . There 63

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

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

need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” and “neutrosophic 68

SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 69

the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 71

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

SuperHyperClique are redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperClique” if the intended Table 73

holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 74

more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic SuperHyperClique 75

more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 76

neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 77

SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 78

SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic 79

SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic 80

SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 81

SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 82

SuperHyperClique amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 84

SuperHyperClique .] SuperHyperClique . A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s 85

SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 86

Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 87

SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one 89

SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 90

only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 91

SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 92