Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides The Failures On The Cancer's Recognition in The Perfect Connections of Cancer's Attacks by SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/366982829
Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer's

Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer's Attacks By
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperG...
Preprint · January 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922
CITATIONS READ
0 1
1 author:
Henry Garrett
215 PUBLICATIONS 1,087 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
On Combinatorics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 10 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on 2
the Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of 3
Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named 4
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 5
Henry Garrett 7
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 8
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 9
in this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a Failed 10
SuperHyperClique and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique . Two different types of 11
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 12
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 14
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 15
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 17
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 18
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 19
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 20
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 21
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 22
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 23
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 24
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 25
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 26
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 27
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 28
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 29
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperClique” 30
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 31
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 32
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 33
Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a maximal Failed 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 Expression, 37
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 38
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a maximal 39
neutrosophic Failed 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”. The 45
SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s neither empty 46
1/168
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of 47
extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 48
Failed SuperHyperClique. S The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 49
SuperHyperVertices, S is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 50
SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, S 51
is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme 52
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 53
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 54
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some 55
extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme 56
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, S{z}. There’s not only three 57
extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 58
non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme 59
type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme 60
SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme 61
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S doesn’t have less than four 62
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 63
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To 64
sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S is the 65
non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 66
SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 67
SuperHyperVertices, S is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an 68
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 69
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme 70
SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme 71
Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s 72
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount 74
extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 75
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme 76
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, S Thus the 77
non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, S is up. The obvious simple extreme 78
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: S is the extreme 79
SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a 80
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 81
the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 82
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” 83
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 84
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, 85
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 86
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. 87
But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed 88
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the 89
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are S. In a connected neutrosophic 90
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is 91
featured On the Figures. It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed 92
SuperHyperClique . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Failed 93
SuperHyperClique more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed 94
SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “Failed 95
SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 96
2/168
by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 97
the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Failed SuperHyperClique . It’s 98
redefined a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique if the mentioned Table holds, 99
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 100
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 101
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 102
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 103
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 104
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 105
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 106
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a Failed 107
SuperHyperClique . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of 108
previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all 109
SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperClique, then it’s officially called a 110
“Failed SuperHyperClique” but otherwise, it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperClique . There are 111
some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “Failed 112
SuperHyperClique ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 113
there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 114
Failed SuperHyperClique . For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed 115
SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic Failed 116
SuperHyperClique” and a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The 117
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 118
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 119
assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 120
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a Failed 121
SuperHyperClique are redefined to a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” if the 122
intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. 123
Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic Failed 124
SuperHyperClique more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 125
There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus 126
SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 127
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, 128
“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic 129
SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 130
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 131
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” where it’s the strongest [the maximum 132
neutrosophic value from all the Failed SuperHyperClique amid the maximum value 133
amid all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperClique .] Failed 134
SuperHyperClique . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and 135
the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic 136
SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 137
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two 138
exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 139
given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 140
amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 141
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two 142
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only 143
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these 144
SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 145
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 146
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 147
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 148
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 149
3/168
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 150
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 151
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 152
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 153
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 154
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In 155
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 156
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 157
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 158
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 159
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 160
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 161
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 162
said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 163
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 164
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 165
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 166
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 167
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 168
The aim is to find either the longest Failed SuperHyperClique or the strongest Failed 169
SuperHyperClique in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest Failed 170
SuperHyperClique, called Failed SuperHyperClique, and the strongest Failed 171
SuperHyperClique, called neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, some general results 172
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have 173
only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 174
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 175
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 176
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph 177
theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed. 178
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique, Cancer’s 179
Recognition 180
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 181
1 Background 182
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 183
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 184
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 185
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 186
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 187
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 188
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 189
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 190
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 191
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 192
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 193
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 194
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 195
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 196
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 197
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 198
4/168
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 199
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 200
majority of notions. 201
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 202
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 203
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 204
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 205
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 206
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 207
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 208
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 209
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 210
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 211
based on initial background. 212
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 213
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 214
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 215
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 216
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 217
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 218
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 219
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 220
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 221
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 222
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 223
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 224
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 225
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 226
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 227
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 228
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 229
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 230
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 231
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [7] by Henry 232
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 233
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 234
Beyond” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 235
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 236
” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 237
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 238
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 239
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 240
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 241
in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 242
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 243
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 244
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 245
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 246
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [13] by 247
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 248
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [14] by 249
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 250
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 251
5/168
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 252
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 253
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 254
(2022), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 255
Forwarding Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 256
in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 257
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 258
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique” in 259
Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 260
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 261
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by 262
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 263
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 264
Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 265
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 266
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 267
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 268
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2023), 269
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 270
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 271
in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 272
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 273
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 274
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 275
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 276
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 277
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [26] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 278
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 279
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 280
Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 281
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 282
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 283
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 284
than 2347 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 285
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 286
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 287
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 288
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 289
in Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 290
than 3048 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 291
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 292
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 293
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 294
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 295
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 296
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 297
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 298
2 Motivation and Contributions 299
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 300
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 301
6/168
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 302
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 303
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 304
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 305
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 306
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 307
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 308
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 309
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 310
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 311
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 312
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 313
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 314
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 315
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 316
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 317
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 318
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 319
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 320
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 321
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 322
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 323
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 324
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 325
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 326
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 327
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 328
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 329
formally called “ Failed SuperHyperClique” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 330
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 331
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 332
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 333
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 334
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 335
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 336
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 337
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 338
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 339
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 340
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 341
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 342
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 343
either the optimal Failed SuperHyperClique or the neutrosophic Failed 344
SuperHyperClique in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 345
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 346
s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 347
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any 348
formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 349
SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 350
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 351
find the “ amount of Failed SuperHyperClique” of either individual of cells or the groups 352
of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 353
7/168
Failed SuperHyperClique” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group 354
of cells? 355
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 356
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 357
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 358
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ Failed 359
SuperHyperClique” and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” on 360
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 361
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 362
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 363
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 364
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 365
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 366
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 367
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 368
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 369
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 370
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 371
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 372
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, Failed SuperHyperClique and 373
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are figured out in sections “ Failed 374
SuperHyperClique” and “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. In the sense of 375
tackling on getting results and in order to make sense about continuing the research, the 376
ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and 377
as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s 378
done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 379
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are 380
some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 381
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 382
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The 383
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 384
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 385
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 386
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ Failed 387
SuperHyperClique”, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”, “Results on 388
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 389
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 390
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 391
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ Failed SuperHyperClique”. The 392
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 393
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 394
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 395
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 396
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 397
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 398
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 399
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 400
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 401
8/168
3 Preliminaries 402
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 403
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 404
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [31],Definition 2.1,p.87). 405
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 406
+
]− 0, 1 [. 407
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [34],Definition 6,p.2). 408
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. [33],Definition 409
3,p.291). 410
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 411
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 412
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 413
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 414
1, 2, . . . , n); 415
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 416
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 417
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 418
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 419
9/168
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 420
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 421
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ); 422
(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 . 423
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 424
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 425
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 426
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 427
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 428
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 429
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 430
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 431
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 432
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 433
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 434
(Ref. [33],Section 4,pp.291-292). 435
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 436
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 437
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 438
could be characterized as follow-up items. 439
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 440
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 441
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 442
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 443
HyperEdge; 444
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 445
SuperEdge; 446
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 447
SuperHyperEdge. 448
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 449
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 450
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [32], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 451
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 452
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 453
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 454
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 455
10/168
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 456
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 457
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)). 458
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 459
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 460
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 461
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 462
1, 2, . . . , n); 463
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 464
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 465
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 466
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 467
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 468
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 469
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 470
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 471
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 472
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 473
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 474
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 475
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 476
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 477
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 478
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 479
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 480
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 481
(Ref. [33],Section 4,pp.291-292). 482
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 483
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 484
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 485
11/168
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 487
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 488
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 489
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 490
HyperEdge; 491
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 492
SuperEdge; 493
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 494
SuperHyperEdge. 495
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 496
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 497
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 498
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 499
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 500
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to 501
have more understandable. 502
Definition 3.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 503
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 504
(i). It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 505
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 506
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 507
given SuperHyperEdges; 508
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 509
SuperHyperEdges; 510
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 511
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 512
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 513
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 514
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 515
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 516
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 517
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 518
common SuperVertex. 519
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 520
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 521
Vs if either of following conditions hold: 522
12/168
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 523
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 524
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 525
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 526
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 527
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 528
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 529
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 530
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 531
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 532
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 533
s). 534
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; 536
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 537
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 538
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called neutrosophic 539
SuperHyperPath . 540
Definition 3.16. ((neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique). 541
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 542
(i) an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme 543
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 544
extreme SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an 545
extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 546
amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of extreme 547
SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 548
SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an extreme (z, −)−Failed SuperHyperClique 549
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme 550
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 551
extreme SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an 552
extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z 553
extreme SuperHyperEdge amid an amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices given 554
by that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also 555
called an extreme (−, x)−Failed SuperHyperClique extreme Failed 556
SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 557
N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 558
13/168
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 559
SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount 560
of extreme SuperHyperEdges amid x extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that 561
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an 562
extreme (z, x)−Failed SuperHyperClique extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 563
C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme 564
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with 565
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 566
extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z extreme SuperHyperEdges amid 567
x extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet of the 568
extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the extreme extension of the extreme notion 569
of the extreme clique in the extreme graphs to the extreme SuperHyperNotion of 570
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique in the extreme SuperHyperGraphs where in 571
the extreme setting of the graphs, there’s an extreme (1, 2)−Failed 572
SuperHyperClique since an extreme graph is an extreme SuperHyperGraph; 573
(ii) an neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 574
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 575
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 576
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 577
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of 578
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of neutrosophic 579
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 580
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an neutrosophic (z, −)−Failed 581
SuperHyperClique neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for 582
an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic 583
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 584
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z neutrosophic 586
SuperHyperEdge amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 587
that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s 588
also called an neutrosophic (−, x)−Failed SuperHyperClique neutrosophic 589
Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 590
N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 591
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an 592
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 593
there’s an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic 594
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 595
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an neutrosophic (z, x)−Failed 596
SuperHyperClique neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for 597
an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic 598
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 599
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z neutrosophic 601
SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 602
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the 603
neutrosophic extension of the neutrosophic notion of the neutrosophic clique in the 604
neutrosophic graphs to the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion of the neutrosophic 605
Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs where in the 606
neutrosophic setting of the graphs, there’s an neutrosophic (1, 2)−Failed 607
SuperHyperClique since an neutrosophic graph is an extreme SuperHyperGraph; 608
Proposition 3.17. An extreme clique in an extreme graph is an extreme (1, 2)−Failed 609
SuperHyperClique in that extreme SuperHyperGraph. And reverse of that statement 610
14/168
doesn’t hold. 611
Proposition 3.18. A neutrosophic clique in a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic 612
(1, 2)−Failed SuperHyperClique in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. And reverse of 613
that statement doesn’t hold. 614
Proposition 3.19. Assume an extreme (x, z)−Failed SuperHyperClique in an extreme 615
SuperHyperGraph. For all zi ≤ z, xi ≤ x, it’s an extreme (xi , zi )−Failed 616
SuperHyperClique in that extreme SuperHyperGraph. 617
Proposition 3.20. Assume a neutrosophic (x, z)−Failed SuperHyperClique in a 618
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. For all zi ≤ z, xi ≤ x, it’s a neutrosophic 619
(xi , zi )−Failed SuperHyperClique in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 620
Definition 3.21. ((neutrosophic)δ−Failed SuperHyperClique). 621
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 622
(i) an δ−Failed SuperHyperClique is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 623
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 624
(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 625
|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 626
Expression (3.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 627
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique is a maximal neutrosophic of 628
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 629
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 630
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 631
|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. 632
And the Expression (3.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 633
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 634
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to 635
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 636
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 637
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 638
Definition 3.22. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 639
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 640
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 641
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 642
understandable. 643
Definition 3.23. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 644
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 645
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 646
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic neutrosophic 647
SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic 648
SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic 649
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) 650
holds. 651
15/168
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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperClique. Since 652
there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperClique more 653
understandable. 654
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to 655
“redefine” the notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 656
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 657
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 658
Definition 3.24. Assume a Failed SuperHyperClique. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 659
Failed SuperHyperClique if the Table (3) holds. 660
4 Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 661
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s neither empty 662
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of 663
extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 664
Failed SuperHyperClique. S The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 665
SuperHyperVertices, S is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 666
SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, S 667
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some 671

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.24)
16/168
extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme 672
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, S{z}. There’s not only three 673
extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 674
SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme 677
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S doesn’t have less than four 678
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 679
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To 680
sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S is the 681
SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 683
SuperHyperVertices, S is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an 684
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 685
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme 686
Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s 688
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount 690
extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 691
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme 692
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, S Thus the 693
non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, S is up. The obvious simple extreme 694
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: S is the extreme 695
SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a 696
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 697
the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 698
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 702
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. 703
But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed 704
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are S. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 706
ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figures. 707
Example 4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 708
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 709
• On the Figure (1), the extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme Failed 710
SuperHyperClique, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty extreme SuperHyperEdges 711
but E2 is a loop extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an extreme SuperHyperEdge. 712
Thus in the terms of extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one extreme 713
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is extreme 714
isolated means that there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an extreme 715
endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given 716
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of 717
extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 718
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. The extreme 719
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the simple 720
17/168
extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The 721
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, 722
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of 725
extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge 726
amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique 727
is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }. 728
There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme 729
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. 730
The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed 731
SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme 732
SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 733
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, doesn’t have less than four 734
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 735
SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 737
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 738
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme 739
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is an 740
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 741
ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices 742
such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme 743
Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 745
Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S 746
of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge 747
for some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme 748
type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only 749
less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 750
SuperHyperSet, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 751
SuperHyperClique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 752
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: 753
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, 754
does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 755
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 756
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 757
is only and only

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }.
• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is 761
up. E1 and E3 Failed SuperHyperClique are some empty SuperHyperEdges but 762
E2 is a loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 763
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 764
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 765
an endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given 766
18/168
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of 767
extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 768
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. The extreme 769
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the simple 770
extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The 771
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, 772
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, doesn’t have less than four 784
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 788
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is an 790
SuperHyperSet, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 801
SuperHyperClique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 802
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, 804
is only and only

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }.
up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a 812
19/168
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 813
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 814
SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 815
Failed SuperHyperClique. {}. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 816
SuperHyperVertices, {}, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 817
Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 818
SuperHyperVertices, {}, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 819
for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme 820
type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 821
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme 822
SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by 823
extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 824
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. There’s not only three extreme 825
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 826
SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the 829
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {}, doesn’t have less than 830
four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 831
SuperHyperVertices, {}, is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 834
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the 835
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {}, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 836
C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme 837
SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme 839
type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an 840
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s 841
extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for 843
some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme 844
SuperHyperSet, {}. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, {}, 847
is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 848
SuperHyperClique, not: {}, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: {}, does includes 849
only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 850
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 851
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 852
is only and only

{}.
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a Failed SuperHyperClique, is 856
up. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on 857
{F }, and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside 858
20/168
E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The following extreme 859
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 860
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 861
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 862
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the simple extreme 863
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme 864
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is an 865
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme 866
is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, 871
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the 872
intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 873
SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called 874
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes 875
only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of 876
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, doesn’t have less than four 877
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 881
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is an 883
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 894
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 895
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, 897
is only and only

{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }.
up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 905
21/168
following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple 906
extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 907
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 908
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the simple extreme 909
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is an 911
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the 918
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, doesn’t have less than four 923
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 927
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 940
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 941
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 943
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a 944
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention 945
that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 946
is only and only

{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is mentioned as 950
the SuperHyperModel ESHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 951
22/168
{V5 , V6 , V15 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 956
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 957
SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 958
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 959
C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme 960
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex 965
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme 966
Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 967
called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet 968
includes only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme 969
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, doesn’t have less 970
than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus 971
the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 972
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 974
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is an extreme 976
Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 977
SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 , V15 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 987
SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 988
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, 989
is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, does includes only less than four 990
SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 991
It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic 992
type-SuperHyperSet called the 993
is only and only {V5 , V6 , V15 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 997
ESHG : (V, E) with an illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6). It’s 998
also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only 999
obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed 1000
23/168
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme 1001
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V5 , V6 , V15 }. 1002
• On the Figure (7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme Failed 1003
SuperHyperClique {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 } is up. There’s neither empty 1004
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme 1005
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 1006
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 1007
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is 1011
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme 1012
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside 1018
the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 1019
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 1030
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in 1044
a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 1045
mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 1046
the 1047
24/168
is only and only
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of depicted
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (7). But
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
are the only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed 1051
extreme SuperHyperVertices. 1053
25/168
the 1097
is only and only

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
extreme SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1103
ESHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 1104
{V5 , V6 , V15 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1109
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 1110
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1112
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex 1118
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, doesn’t have less 1123
than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus 1124
the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 1125
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 1127
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is an extreme 1129
26/168
SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 , V15 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 1140
SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 1141
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, 1142
is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, does includes only less than four 1143
is only and only {V5 , V6 , V15 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1150
ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (9). It’s also, 1151
an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme 1152
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious 1153
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are 1154
{V5 , V6 , V15 }. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of 1155
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 1156
27/168
the 1200
is only and only

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
extreme SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1206
ESHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1207
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1212
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 1213
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is an 1215
28/168
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t have less than four 1227
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 1231
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is an extreme 1233
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 1244
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 1245
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, does includes 1247
is only and only {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1254
ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (11). It’s 1255
also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple 1256
extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those 1257
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed 1258
SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1259
ESHG : (V, E). 1260
29/168
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the 1275
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, 1300
is only and only {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 } in a connected neutrosophic 1307
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the 1308
Figure (11). It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only 1309
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }. In a connected 1312
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1313
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1318
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 1319
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is an 1321
30/168
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t have less than four 1333
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 1337
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is an extreme 1339
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 1350
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 1351
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, does includes 1353
is only and only {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1360
SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1365
ESHG : (V, E). 1366
31/168
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1371
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 1372
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is an 1374
is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 }. 1380
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, doesn’t have less than four 1386
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 1390
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is an 1392
SuperHyperSet, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 1403
SuperHyperClique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 1404
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, does 1406
includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 1407
is only and only V = {V1 , V2 , V3 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1413
SuperHyperClique, are V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. In a connected extreme 1418
32/168
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this extreme SuperHyperGraph 1419
ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme graph G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings 1420
are coincided. 1421
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1426
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 1427
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is an 1429
is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 }. 1435
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, doesn’t have less than four 1441
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 1445
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is an 1447
SuperHyperSet, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 1458
SuperHyperClique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 1459
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, does 1461
includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 1462
33/168
is only and only V = {V1 , V2 , V3 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1468
SuperHyperClique, are V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. In a connected extreme 1473
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this extreme SuperHyperGraph 1474
ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme graph G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings 1475
are coincided. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as 1476
Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 1477
E4 ∪ {V21 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1482
E4 ∪ {V21 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 1483
SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1485
SuperHyperVertices, E4 . There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex 1491
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, doesn’t have less than 1496
SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 1500
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is an extreme 1502
SuperHyperSet, E4 ∪ {V21 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 1513
SuperHyperClique, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 1514
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: E4 ∪ {V21 }, is 1515
the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: E4 ∪ {V21 }, does includes only less than four 1516
34/168
is only and only E4 ∪ {V21 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1523
SuperHyperClique, are E4 ∪ {V21 }. In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1528
ESHG : (V, E). 1529
35/168
SuperHyperClique, are E4 ∪ {V25 }. In a connected neutrosophic 1580
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is 1581
featured On the Figure (17). 1582
36/168
SuperHyperClique, are E4 ∪ {V25 }. In a connected neutrosophic 1633
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1634
• On the Figure (19), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is

up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The
following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple
extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique.
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed

SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of
extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge
amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique
is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, E8 . There’s
not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up.
The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme
SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
37/168
doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the extreme
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some
extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s
no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices
given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 }.
Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique, not:
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is only and only

E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (16). It’s also, an extreme free-triangle
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 }.
In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1641
38/168
• On the Figure (20), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is
up. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique.
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed

SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },

the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of
extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge
amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique
is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, E6 . There’s
not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up.
The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed
SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the extreme
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },

SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s
no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices
given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
39/168
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },

E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
is only and only

E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (16). It’s also, an extreme free-triangle
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 }.
Proposition 4.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is a Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1649
bound for the cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperClique is the cardinality of 1650
V \ V \ {x, z}. 1651
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1652
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a Failed 1653
SuperHyperClique since neither amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of 1654
SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the extreme number of 1655
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one. Let us consider the extreme 1656
SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z}. This extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1657
SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to propose some amount of extreme 1658
SuperHyperEdges for some amount of the extreme SuperHyperVertices taken from the 1659
mentioned extreme SuperHyperSet and it has the maximum extreme cardinality amid 1660
40/168
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperClique
in the Example (4.1)

41/168

42/168

43/168

44/168
Figure 10. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyper-

Clique in the Example (4.1)
45/168

46/168

47/168

48/168

49/168

50/168
those extreme type-SuperHyperSets but the minimum case of the maximum extreme 1661
cardinality indicates that these extreme type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the 1662
extreme lower bound in the term of extreme sharpness. In other words, the extreme 1663
SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least 1664
on-triangle style is up but sometimes the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the 1665
extreme SuperHyperVertices is free-triangle and it doesn’t make a contradiction to the 1666
supposition on the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1667
Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the connected loopless 1668
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case, literally, 1669
V \ V \ {x, y, z}, is a Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words, the least cardinality, the 1670
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperClique is the cardinality of 1671
V \ V \ {x, y, z}. Then we’ve lost some connected loopless neutrosophic 1672
SuperHyperClasses of the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled 1673
free-triangle. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some 1674
counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the 1675
graph titled path and cycle are well-known classes in that setting and they could be 1676
considered as the examples for the tight bound of V \ V \ {x, z}. Let V \ V \ {z} in 1677
mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at least two 1678
SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the principles of 1679
the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the condition is on the 1680
existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the SuperHyperVertices. In other 1681
words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the extreme SuperHyperSet has the necessary 1682
condition for the intended definition to be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn 1683
not by the conditions of the main definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on 1684
the usage of the main definition. 1685
To make sense with precise words in the terms of “Failed”, the follow-up illustrations 1686
are coming up. 1687
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique.
The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some
extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
51/168
There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed
SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet
of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such
that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices
given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique
and it’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
52/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1689
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1690
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique
amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique, are
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is a Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1695
bound for the cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperClique is the cardinality of 1696
V \ V \ {x, z}. 1697
Proposition 4.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the extreme number of Failed SuperHyperClique has, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
if there’s a Failed SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1698
cardinality. 1699
53/168
Proof. The extreme structure of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique decorates the 1700
extreme SuperHyperVertices have received complete extreme connections so as this 1701
extreme style implies different versions of extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum 1702
extreme cardinality in the terms of extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The 1703
lower extreme bound is to have the minimum extreme groups of extreme 1704
SuperHyperVertices have perfect extreme connections inside and the outside of this 1705
extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the used 1706
extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its extreme properties taken from the fact that 1707
it’s simple. If there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex in the targeted extreme 1708
SuperHyperSet, then there’s no extreme connection. Furthermore, the extreme 1709
existence of one extreme SuperHyperVertex has no extreme effect to talk about the 1710
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since at least two extreme SuperHyperVertices 1711
involve to make a title in the extreme background of the extreme SuperHyperGraph. 1712
The extreme SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no extreme SuperHyperEdge but at 1713
least two extreme SuperHyperVertices make the extreme version of extreme 1714
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the extreme setting of non-obvious extreme 1715
SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to 1716
mention that the word “Simple” is used as extreme adjective for the initial extreme 1717
SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no extreme appearance of the loop extreme version 1718
of the extreme SuperHyperEdge and this extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to be 1719
loopless. The extreme adjective “loop” on the basic extreme framework engages one 1720
extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never happens in this extreme setting. With these 1721
extreme bases, on an extreme SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one extreme 1722
SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the 1723
extreme cardinality two. Thus, an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme 1724
cardinality at least two. Assume an extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This extreme 1725
SuperHyperSet isn’t an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique since either the extreme 1726
SuperHyperGraph is an obvious extreme SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since 1727
there’s no extreme usage of this extreme framework and even more there’s no extreme 1728
connection inside or the extreme SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its 1729
consequences, there’s an extreme contradiction with the term “extreme Failed 1730
SuperHyperClique” since the maximum extreme cardinality never happens for this 1731
extreme style of the extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no extreme 1732
connection inside as mentioned in first extreme case in the forms of drawback for this 1733
selected extreme SuperHyperSet. Let V \ V \ {x, y, z} comes up. This extreme case 1734
implies having the extreme style of on-triangle extreme style on the every extreme 1735
elements of this extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the extreme Failed 1736
SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1737
such that any extreme amount of the extreme SuperHyperVertices are on-triangle 1738
extreme style. The extreme cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the 1739
maximum in comparison to the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x} but the lower 1740
extreme bound is up. Thus the minimum extreme cardinality of the maximum extreme 1741
cardinality ends up the extreme discussion. The first extreme term refers to the extreme 1742
setting of the extreme SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s an 1743
extreme SuperHyperClass of an extreme SuperHyperGraph has no on-triangle extreme 1744
style amid any amount of its extreme SuperHyperVertices. This extreme setting of the 1745
extreme SuperHyperModel proposes an extreme SuperHyperSet has only two extreme 1746
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s extreme amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges 1747
involving these two extreme SuperHyperVertices. The extreme cardinality of this 1748
extreme SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the extreme case is occurred in the 1749
minimum extreme situation. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet 1750
V \ V \ {z, x} has the maximum extreme cardinality such that V \ V \ {z, x} contains 1751
some extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s amount extreme SuperHyperEdges 1752
54/168
for amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices taken from the extreme SuperHyperSet 1753
V \ V \ {z, x}. It means that the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1754
SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z, x}. is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique for the 1755
extreme SuperHyperGraph as used extreme background in the extreme terms of worst 1756
extreme case and the lower extreme bound occurred in the specific extreme 1757
SuperHyperClasses of the extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are extreme free-triangle. 1758
are coming up. 1760

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
55/168
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
56/168
is only and only
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then the extreme number of Failed SuperHyperClique has, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
if there’s a Failed SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound 1768
for cardinality. 1769
Proposition 4.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme
cardinality of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is at least
z ∪ {zx}
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1770
is at least the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme 1771
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 1772
extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme Failed 1773
SuperHyperClique in some cases but the extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 1774
extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1775
contained in an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 1776
Proof. Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme

SuperHyperVertices. Then every extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least one extreme
SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those extreme SuperHyperVertices have
the eligibles to be contained in an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Those extreme
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an extreme style-Failed
SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
are the extreme SuperHyperVertices of an extreme 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
extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperGraph. The formal definition is
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
57/168
if and only if Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices and there’s an extreme
SuperHyperEdge between the extreme SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other
definition for the extreme SuperHyperEdge in the terms of extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique is
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
This definition coincides with the definition of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique
but with slightly differences in the maximum extreme cardinality amid those extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the extreme
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|extreme cardinality ,

z
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique.

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
extreme SuperHyperEdge E. Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
But with the slightly differences, 1777
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
Thus E is an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique where E is fixed that means 1778
Ex = E. for all extreme intended SuperHyperVertices but in an extreme Failed 1779
SuperHyperClique, Ex could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a 1780
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an extreme SuperHyperEdge 1781
has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme cardinality of the extreme Failed 1782
SuperHyperClique is at least z. It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the 1783
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is at least the maximum extreme number of extreme 1784
SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the extreme 1785
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices 1786
are renamed to extreme Failed SuperHyperClique in some cases but the extreme 1787
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1788
has the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme Failed 1789
SuperHyperClique. 1790
are coming up. 1792

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
58/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
59/168
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If
an extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme
cardinality of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is at least
z ∪ {zx}
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme Failed 1800
SuperHyperClique is at least the maximum extreme number of extreme 1801
60/168
Proposition 4.5. Assume a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 1808
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge has only less than three 1809
distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme quasi-Failed 1810
SuperHyperClique plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. In other words, 1811
there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct extreme 1812
SuperHyperVertices in an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique, plus one extreme 1813
SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 1814
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no SuperHyperEdges. But the non-obvious 1815
extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses some issues 1816
about the extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some remarks on 1817
the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s 1818
amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices taken 1819
from that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices but this extreme 1820
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum extreme 1821
SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In 1822
a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge 1823
containing at least two extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an extreme 1824
quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique where the extreme completion of the extreme incidence 1825
is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an extreme embedded Failed SuperHyperClique. The 1826
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In 1827
the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1828
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1829
SuperHyperSets have the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1830
extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than three extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1831
included in the minimum extreme style of the embedded extreme Failed 1832
SuperHyperClique. The interior types of the extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. 1833
Since the extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior 1834
extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, 1835
the perfect connections inside the extreme SuperHyperSet pose the extreme Failed 1836
SuperHyperClique. Thus extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one 1837
extreme SuperHyperEdge and in extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior extreme 1838
SuperHyperVertices in that extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded extreme Failed 1839
SuperHyperClique, there’s the usage of exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices since 1840
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 1841
relevant than the title “interior”. One extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, 1842
inside. Thus, the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 1843
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 1844
implying the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1845
with the exclusion of the exclusion of two extreme SuperHyperVertices and with other 1846
terms, the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique with the inclusion of two extreme 1847
SuperHyperVertices is an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique. To sum them up, in 1848
a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), there’s only one 1849
extreme SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior extreme 1850
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique. In 1851
other words, there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct 1852
extreme SuperHyperVertices in an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique. 1853
are coming up. 1855
61/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
62/168
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
63/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 1863
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge has only less than three 1864
distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme quasi-Failed 1865
SuperHyperClique plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. In other 1866
words, there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct extreme 1867
SuperHyperVertices in an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique, plus one extreme 1868
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1870
all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-Failed 1871
SuperHyperClique if for any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme 1872
SuperHyperVertex, the two interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme 1873
SuperHyperNeighbors with no extreme exception at all plus one extreme 1874
Proof. The main definition of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has two titles. An 1876
extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique and its corresponded quasi-maximum extreme 1877
SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-styles. For any extreme 1878
number, there’s an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique with that quasi-maximum 1879
extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded extreme 1880
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1881
extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the extreme 1882
quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques for all extreme numbers less than its extreme 1883
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1884
ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the extreme quasi-Failed 1885
SuperHyperClique, again and more in the operations of collecting all the extreme 1886
quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques acted on the all possible used formations of the extreme 1887
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one extreme number. This extreme number is considered 1888
as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques. Let 1889
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique be an extreme 1890
number, an extreme SuperHyperSet and an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 1891
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is 1892
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1893
GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
64/168
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1894
technical definition for the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 1895
GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique =

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the extreme 1896
Failed SuperHyperClique poses the upcoming expressions. 1897

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1898

= max zExtreme Number = 2}.
And then, 1899

|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = 2}.
To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1900

= 2}.
1901

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
65/168
1902

1903

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “extreme 1904
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the extreme 1905
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1906
incident to an extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “extreme 1907
Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “extreme 1908
Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” since “extreme Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” 1909
happens “extreme Failed SuperHyperClique” in an extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial 1910
framework and background but “extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens 1911
“extreme Failed SuperHyperClique” in an extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial 1912
framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the 1913
extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1914
“extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “extreme Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique”, and 1915
“extreme Failed SuperHyperClique” are up. 1916
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1917
GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique be an extreme number, an extreme 1918
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and the new terms 1919
are up. 1920

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1921

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1922

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
66/168
1923

|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = max zExtreme Number }.
And with go back to initial structure, 1924

= 2}.
1925

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1926

1927

|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = 2}.
Thus, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), the all interior 1928
extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique if 1929
for any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, the two 1930
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1931
no extreme exception at all. 1932
are coming up. 1934

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
67/168
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
68/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, aAssume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1942
The all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-Failed 1943
SuperHyperClique if for any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme 1944
SuperHyperVertex, the two interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme 1945
SuperHyperNeighbors with no extreme exception at all plus one extreme 1946
69/168
Proposition 4.7. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1948
any extreme Failed SuperHyperClique only contains all interior extreme 1949
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1950
extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible extreme 1951
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no 1952
exception plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them but everything is possible 1953
about extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out plus one 1954
extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 1955
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme 1956
SuperHyperEdge ESHE has some extreme SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all extreme 1957
numbers of those extreme SuperHyperVertices from that extreme SuperHyperEdge 1958
excluding excluding more than r distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any 1959
given extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an 1960
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp extreme 1961
bound for extreme cardinality. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1962
ESHG : (V, E). The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1963
VESHE \ {z} is an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1964
that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices in 1965
common but it isn’t an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t have 1966
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have a some 1968
SuperHyperVertices in common. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1969
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 1970
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an extreme Failed 1971
SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t do the extreme procedure such that such that 1972
there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices in 1973
common [there are at least one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1974
sometimes in the connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an extreme 1975
SuperHyperVertex, titled its extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that extreme 1976
SuperHyperVertex in the extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the extreme 1977
procedure”.]. There’s only one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1978
extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of extreme 1979
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, VESHE 1980
SuperHyperClique, VESHE , is an extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all 1982
extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of extreme pairs are titled 1983
extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1984
ESHG : (V, E). Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1985
VESHE , is the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an extreme 1986
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme 1987
SuperHyperEdge to have an extreme SuperHyperVertex in common. Thus, a connected 1988
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The any extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1989
only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior extreme 1990
SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1991
them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all extreme 1992
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception but everything is possible about 1993
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1994
are coming up. 1996

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
70/168
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
71/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
72/168
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2004
The any extreme Failed SuperHyperClique only contains all interior extreme 2005
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique 2006
extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible extreme 2007
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no 2008
exception plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them but everything is 2009
possible about extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 2010
out plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 2011
2012
Remark 4.8. The words “ extreme Failed SuperHyperClique” and “extreme 2013
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum extreme type-style. In other words, 2014
they either refer to the maximum extreme SuperHyperNumber or to the minimum 2015
extreme SuperHyperNumber and the extreme SuperHyperSet either with the maximum 2016
extreme SuperHyperCardinality or with the minimum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. 2017
Proposition 4.9. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2018
Consider an extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 2019
has only one extreme representative minus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of 2020
them in. 2021
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an 2022
extreme SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (4.7), the extreme results 2023
are up. Thus on a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), and in an 2024
extreme SuperHyperDominating, an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has only one 2025
extreme representative minus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them in. 2026
5 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 2027
The previous extreme approaches apply on the upcoming extreme results on extreme 2028
SuperHyperClasses. 2029
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 2030
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique-style with the maximum extreme 2031
SuperHyperCardinality is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 2032
SuperHyperVertices plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2033
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 2034
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2035
extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions in the form of interior 2036
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdges not excluding 2037
only any interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the extreme unique SuperHyperEdges 2038
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has 2039
the extreme number of all the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices without any minus 2040
on SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2041
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Assume an extreme

SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every
extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in
common. Thus those extreme SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Those extreme SuperHyperVertices are
potentially included in an extreme style-Failed SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
73/168
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
SuperHyperClique is
{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
SuperHyperClique. The main definition of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has 2055
two titles. An extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique and its corresponded 2056
quasi-maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of 2057
quasi-styles. For any extreme number, there’s an extreme quasi-Failed 2058
SuperHyperClique with that quasi-maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the 2059
terms of the embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded extreme 2060
SuperHyperGraph, then the extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 2061
collection of all the extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques for all extreme numbers 2062
74/168
less than its extreme corresponded maximum number. The essence of the extreme 2063
Failed SuperHyperClique ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the extreme 2064
quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique, again and more in the operations of collecting all the 2065
extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques acted on the all possible used formations of the 2066
extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one extreme number. This extreme number is 2067
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques. 2068
Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique be an 2069
extreme number, an extreme SuperHyperSet and an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 2070
Then 2071



= zExtreme Number |


75/168
And then, 2079


= 2}.
2081

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2082

2083

76/168
are up. 2100

2101

= zExtreme Number |
2102

2103


= 2}.
2105

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2106

77/168
2107

no extreme exception at all. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 2112
ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme SuperHyperEdge ESHE has some extreme 2113
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all extreme numbers of those extreme 2114
SuperHyperVertices from that extreme SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than 2115
r distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given extreme SuperHyperSet of 2116
the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 2117
with the least cardinality, the lower sharp extreme bound for extreme cardinality. 2118
Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The extreme 2119
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an extreme 2120
SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme 2121
SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices in common but it isn’t an 2122
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t have 2123
are coming up. 2153
78/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
79/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
80/168
Figure 21. An extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique in the Example (5.3)
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 2161
Then an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2162
extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions in the form of interior 2163
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdges not excluding 2164
only any interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the extreme unique 2165
SuperHyperEdges plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed 2166
SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of all the interior extreme 2167
SuperHyperVertices without any minus on SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one extreme 2168
SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2169
Example 5.3. In the Figure (21), the connected extreme SuperHyperPath 2170
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The extreme SuperHyperSet, corresponded 2171
to E5 , VE5 ∪ {V25 , of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme 2172
SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (21), is the Failed 2173
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 2175
extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions on the form of interior 2177
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the same extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods not 2178
excluding any extreme SuperHyperVertex plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2179
An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of all the extreme 2180
SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum extreme cardinality plus one extreme 2181
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Assume an extreme

81/168
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
SuperHyperClique is
{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
82/168
Then 2212



= zExtreme Number |

83/168

And then, 2220


= 2}.
2222

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2223

2224

84/168
are up. 2241

2242

= zExtreme Number |
2243

2244


= 2}.
2246

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
85/168
2247

2248

86/168
are coming up. 2294

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
87/168
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
88/168
is only and only
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 2302
extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions on the form of interior 2304
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the same extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods not 2305
excluding any extreme SuperHyperVertex plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2306
An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of all the extreme 2307
SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum extreme cardinality plus one extreme 2308
Example 5.5. In the Figure (22), the connected extreme SuperHyperCycle

N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, ,
corresponded to E8 , VE8 , by the Algorithm in previous result, of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in the
extreme SuperHyperModel (22), corresponded to E8 ,
VE8 ∪ {H7 , J7 , K7 , P7 , L7 , U6 , O7 },
is the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 2310
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 2311
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2312
extreme SuperHyperVertices, not extreme excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with 2313
only all extreme exceptions in the extreme form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices 2314
from common extreme SuperHyperEdge, extreme including only one extreme 2315
SuperHyperEdge plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed 2316
SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of the extreme cardinality of the one extreme 2317
SuperHyperEdge plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2318
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Assume an extreme

{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
89/168
Figure 22. An extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (5.5)
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
SuperHyperClique is
{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
90/168
Then 2348


91/168

= zExtreme Number |


And then, 2356


= 2}.
2358

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
92/168
2359

2360

are up. 2377

2378

= zExtreme Number |
2379

93/168
2380


= 2}.
2382

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2383

2384

94/168
are coming up. 2430

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
95/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
96/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 2438
extreme SuperHyperVertices, not extreme excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, 2440
with only all extreme exceptions in the extreme form of interior extreme 2441
SuperHyperVertices from common extreme SuperHyperEdge, extreme including only 2442
one extreme SuperHyperEdge plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An 2443
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of the extreme cardinality of 2444
the one extreme SuperHyperEdge plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2445
2446
Example 5.7. In the Figure (23), the connected extreme SuperHyperStar

ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by
the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the
connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel
(23), , corresponded to E6 ,
VE6 ∪ {W6 Z6 C7 D7 P6 E7 W7 },
97/168
Figure 23. An extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (5.7)
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 2448
extreme SuperHyperVertices with no any extreme exceptions in the form of interior 2450
extreme SuperHyperVertices titled extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with only no exception 2451
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has 2452
the extreme maximum number of on extreme cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart plus 2453
extreme SuperHyperNeighbors plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2454
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Assume an

extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyperVertices.
Then every extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge with
others in common. Thus those extreme SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be
contained in an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Those extreme SuperHyperVertices
are potentially included in an extreme style-Failed SuperHyperClique. Formally,
consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
SuperHyperClique is
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
98/168

z

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

E
Then 2484

99/168


= zExtreme Number |


And then, 2492


= 2}.
100/168
2494

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2495

2496

are up. 2513

101/168
2514

= zExtreme Number |
2515

2516


= 2}.
2518

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2519

2520

102/168
are coming up. 2566

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
103/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
104/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 2574
105/168
Figure 24. An extreme SuperHyperBipartite extreme Associated to the extreme
Notions of extreme Failed SuperHyperClique in the Example (5.9)
extreme SuperHyperVertices with no any extreme exceptions in the form of interior 2576
extreme SuperHyperVertices titled extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with only no 2577
exception plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed 2578
SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number of on extreme cardinality of the 2579
first SuperHyperPart plus extreme SuperHyperNeighbors plus one extreme 2580
2582
Example 5.9. In the extreme Figure (24), the connected extreme

SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. The
obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous extreme result,
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite
ESHB : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (24), , corresponded to E6 ,
VE6 ∪ {P2 O2 T2 R2 U2 S2 V2 },
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2584
ESHM : (V, E). Then an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme 2585
SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme 2586
exception in the extreme form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from an extreme 2587
SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from 2588
another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring 2589
more than one of them plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed 2590
SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number on all the extreme summation on 2591
the extreme cardinality of the all extreme SuperHyperParts form one SuperHyperEdges 2592
not plus any plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2593
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Assume

an extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyperVertices.
106/168
consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
SuperHyperClique is
{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
107/168
Then 2623



= zExtreme Number |

108/168

And then, 2631


= 2}.
2633

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2634

2635

109/168
are up. 2652

2653

= zExtreme Number |
2654

2655


= 2}.
2657

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
110/168
2658

2659

111/168
are coming up. 2705

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
112/168
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
113/168
Figure 25. An extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique in the Example (5.11)
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2713
ESHM : (V, E). Then an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme 2714
SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme 2715
exception in the extreme form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from an extreme 2716
SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from 2717
another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring 2718
more than one of them plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed 2719
SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number on all the extreme summation on 2720
the extreme cardinality of the all extreme SuperHyperParts form one SuperHyperEdges 2721
not plus any plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2722
Example 5.11. In the Figure (25), the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2723
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme 2724
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme 2725
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 2726
, corresponded to E3 , VE3 ∪ V4 , in the extreme SuperHyperModel (25), is the extreme 2727
Failed SuperHyperClique. 2728
114/168
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 2729
extreme SuperHyperVertices, not excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only no 2731
exception in the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from same extreme 2732
SuperHyperEdge with not the exclusion plus any plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 2733
one. An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number on all the 2734
extreme number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges have common extreme 2735
SuperHyperNeighbors inside for an extreme SuperHyperVertex with the not exclusion 2736
plus any plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2737
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Assume an

extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyperVertices.
consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
SuperHyperClique is
{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
115/168
Then 2767


116/168

= zExtreme Number |


And then, 2775


= 2}.
2777

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
117/168
2778

2779

are up. 2796

2797

= zExtreme Number |
2798

118/168
2799


= 2}.
2801

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2802

2803

119/168
are coming up. 2849

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
120/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
121/168
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 2857
extreme SuperHyperVertices, not excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only 2859
no exception in the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from same extreme 2860
SuperHyperEdge with not the exclusion plus any plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 2861
to one. An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number on all 2862
the extreme number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges have common extreme 2863
SuperHyperNeighbors inside for an extreme SuperHyperVertex with the not exclusion 2864
plus any plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2865
2866
Example 5.13. In the extreme Figure (??), the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel 2867
N SHW : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme 2868
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 2869
of the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), , corresponded to E5 , 2870
VE6 , in the extreme SuperHyperModel (??), is the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 2871
122/168
Figure 26. An extreme SuperHyperWheel extreme Associated to the extreme Notions
of extreme Failed SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (5.13)
6 General Extreme Results 2872
For the Failed SuperHyperClique, extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, and the 2873
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, some general results are introduced. 2874
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is “redefined” 2875
on the positions of the alphabets. 2876
Corollary 6.2. Assume extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 2877
N eutrosophic F ailedSuperHyperClique =
{theF ailedSuperHyperCliqueof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseF ailedSuperHyperClique. }
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 2878
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 2879
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 2880
Corollary 6.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 2881
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and Failed 2882
SuperHyperClique coincide. 2883
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 2885
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique if and only if it’s a Failed SuperHyperClique. 2886
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 2888
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 2889
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 2890
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is 2891
its Failed SuperHyperClique and reversely. 2892
Corollary 6.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 2893
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 2894
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 2895
is its Failed SuperHyperClique and reversely. 2896
123/168
Corollary 6.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 2897
Failed SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique 2898
isn’t well-defined. 2899
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 2900
its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed 2901
SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined. 2902
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed 2905
SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined. 2906
Corollary 6.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 2907
Failed SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique is 2908
well-defined. 2909
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2910
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its Failed 2911
SuperHyperClique is well-defined. 2912
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its Failed 2915
SuperHyperClique is well-defined. 2916
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 2917
is 2918
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2919
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2920
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2921
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2922
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2923
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2924
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 2925
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 2926
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2927
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 2928
statements are equivalent. 2929
∀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.
124/168
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 2930
following statements are equivalent. 2931
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the 2932
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 2934
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the 2936
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 2938
equivalent. 2939
∀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.
2940
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 2941
∅ is 2942
125/168
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2943
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2944
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2945
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2946
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2947
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2948
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 2949
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 2950
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2951
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 2952
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 2954
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the 2956
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 2958
∀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.
126/168
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 2960
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the 2962
∀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.
2964
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 2965
independent SuperHyperSet is 2966
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2967
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2968
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2969
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2970
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2971
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2972
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 2973
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 2974
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2976
SuperHyperClique since the following statements are equivalent. 2977
∀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 Failed 2978
127/168
∀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 Failed 2980
∀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 Failed 2982
∀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 Failed 2984
∀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 Failed 2986
∀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.
2988
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 2989
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 2990
128/168
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2991
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2992
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2993
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2994
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2995
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2996
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2997
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2998
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 2999
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3000
SuperHyperClique. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 3001
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 3002
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3003
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3004
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 3005
∀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 3006
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3007
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3008
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. This 3009
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3010
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3011
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3012
∀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.
129/168
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3015
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3016
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3017
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3018
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3019
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3020
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 3021
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3022
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3023
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3024
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3025
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3026
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3027
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3028
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3029
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3030
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 3033
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3034
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3035
∀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 Failed 3037
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 3038
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3040
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3041
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 3044
130/168
(i) : the Failed SuperHyperClique; 3045
(ii) : the Failed SuperHyperClique; 3046
(iii) : the connected Failed SuperHyperClique; 3047
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 3048
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 3049
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique. 3050
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3051
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3052
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3053
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3054
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 3057
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3058
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3059
∀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.
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3062
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3063
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. This 3064
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3065
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3066
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3067
∀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.
131/168
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3070
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3072
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3073
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 3076
(i) : the dual Failed SuperHyperClique; 3077
(ii) : the dual Failed SuperHyperClique; 3078
(iii) : the dual connected Failed SuperHyperClique; 3079
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 3080
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 3081
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique. 3082
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3083
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3085
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3086
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 3089
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3090
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3091
∀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 3093
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform 3094
SuperHyperWheel. 3095
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3097
SuperHyperClique. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3098
132/168
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 3101
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3102
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 3103
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 3104
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3108
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3109
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3110
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 3111
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 3112
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3113
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3114
∀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 Failed 3115
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperStar. 3116
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3117
Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in 3118
S. 3119
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 3121
SuperHyperStar. 3122
Failed SuperHyperClique and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or 3124
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 3125
in S. 3126
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is 3128
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3129
133/168
O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3131
O(ESHG)
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3132
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3136
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3137
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3138
is a 3139
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3143
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3144
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3145
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3146
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3147
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex 3148
has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, 3149
then 3150
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 3151
in a given SuperHyperStar. 3152
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3153
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3154
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3155
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3156
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3158
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3159
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3160
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3161
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3162
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 3164
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3165
134/168
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s an 3167
δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3168
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 3172
number of 3173
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3177
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3178
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3179
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 3180
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 3181
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3182
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 3185
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3186
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3187
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in 3191
S. 3192
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 3194
Failed SuperHyperClique and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or 3197
135/168
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 3198
in S. 3199
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is 3201
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3202

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3204
O(ESHG)
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3205
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 3207
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 3208
(iv) : Failed SuperHyperClique; 3212
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3213
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3214
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3215
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. These SuperHyperVertex-type have 3216
some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 3217
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperClique and number of connected component is |V − S|. 3219
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a 3221
dual 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3222
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 3224
number is at most O(ESHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 3225
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3226
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3227
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3228
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3229
∀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.
136/168
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3231
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3233
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3235
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3237
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3239
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique and V is the biggest 3241
SuperHyperSet in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and 3242
the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 3243
137/168
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3244
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3245
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 3246
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3250
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3252
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3253
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 3254
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3255
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 3257
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3258
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3259
t>
2
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3261
∀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 Failed 3264
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 3267
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3268
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3269
∀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 Failed 3272
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 3275
t>
2
138/168
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3277
∀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 3280
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 3281
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3283
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3285
∀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 3288
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a given 3289
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 3290
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 3291
t>
2
dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3293
∀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 3296
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a given 3297
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 3298
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 3299
t>
2
dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 3301
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in 3302
the setting of dual 3303
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3307
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3308
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3309
139/168
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3310
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3311
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3313
∀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 3315
in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3316
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3317
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3320
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3321
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3324
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3325
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3328
140/168
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3329
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3332
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3333
∀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 Failed 3336
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 3339
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) 3341
and the neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 3342
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3346
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3347
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3348
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3349
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 3350
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3351
Failed SuperHyperClique. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, 3352
i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 3353
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3354
∀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.
141/168
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3355
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperCycle. 3356
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3357
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 3359
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3360
∀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.
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperPath. 3362
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3363
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 3365
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3366
∀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.
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperWheel. 3368
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3370
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3371
Thus the number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 3374
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3375
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 3378
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3380
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

142/168
(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half 3388
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3389
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 3390
∀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 3393
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 3396
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 3398
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and they are chosen from different 3399
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 3400
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3401
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 3403
SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 3404

O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3406
Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 3407
Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3410
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual Failed 3411
t>
2
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 3413
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 3414
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 3415
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 3416
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 3417
143/168
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 3418
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are 3419
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 3420
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 3421
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 3422
such that 3423
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 3424
(ii) vx ∈ E. 3425
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3426
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, 3427
∀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 ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 3428
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, 3429
∀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.
3430
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 3431
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then 3432
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 3433
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 3434
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, 3436
either 3437
∀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 3438
∀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. 3439
144/168
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 3440
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, either 3441
∀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 3442
∀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. 3443
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 3444
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 3445
number. 3446
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3447
Then 3448
(i) Γ ≤ O; 3449
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 3450
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3451
S = V. 3452
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. For all 3453
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 3454
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 3455
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 3456
S, Γ ≤ O. 3457
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 3458
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. For all 3459
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 3460
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3461
S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3462
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3463
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 3464
145/168
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3465
which is connected. Then 3466
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 3467
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3468
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3469
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3470
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. For all 3471
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 3472
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 3473
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 3474
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 3475
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3476
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3477
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. For all 3478
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 3479
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3480
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 3481
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 3482
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3483
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 3484
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3485
SuperHyperClique; 3486
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3487
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3488
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 3489
a dual Failed SuperHyperClique. 3490
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 3491
146/168
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3492
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 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3493
SuperHyperClique. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 3494
∃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 3495
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a 3496
dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3497
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3498
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3499
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 3500
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 3501
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3502
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3503
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 ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 3509
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3510
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 3512
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 3513
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3514
147/168
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 3515
dual Failed SuperHyperClique. 3516
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 3517
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3518
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 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3519
If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 3520
∃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 3521
Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 3522
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3525
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even 3527
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3528
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 ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 3535
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3536
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 3538
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3539
148/168
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 3540
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 3541
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 3543
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3544
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 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3545
If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 3546
∃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 3547
Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 3548
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3551
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even 3553
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3554
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 ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 3561
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3562
149/168
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3564
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3565
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 3566
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 3568
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3569
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 })|
∃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 Failed 3576
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 3578
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3579
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 ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 3586
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal Failed SuperHyperClique; 3587
150/168
(ii) Γ = 1; 3588
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 3589
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed SuperHyperClique. 3590
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 3591
∀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 = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If 3592
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3593
∃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 Failed SuperHyperClique. It 3594
induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3595
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus 3597
it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3598
SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 3599
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3600
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 3601
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 3602
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3603
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 3604
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 3605
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 3606
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3607
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 3608

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 3609
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
151/168
or 3610
∀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 3611
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If 3612

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 3613
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 3614
∀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 )|
or 3615
∀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 3616
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3617
6+3(i−1)≤n
Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 3618
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3619
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 3620
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 3621
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3622
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 3624
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 3625
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3626
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 3628

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 3629
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 Failed SuperHyperClique. If 3630
n
0 b c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
, then 3631
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 3632
bn
2 c+1
Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3633
152/168
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 3636
bn
2c
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 3639
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 3640
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3641
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 3643
Thus 3644
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 Failed SuperHyperClique. If 3645
n
0 b2c bn
2c
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3646
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
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3647
bn
2c
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3648
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 3651
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 3652
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3653
SuperHyperClique for N SHF; 3654
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 3655
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 3656
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed 3657
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3658
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 3659
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique 3660
for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3661
∃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)|.
153/168
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 3662
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 3663
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3664
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3666
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 3667
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose 3668
ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 3669
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique for 3670
N SHF : (V, E). 3671
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 3672
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 3673
SuperHyperSet. Then 3674
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3675
SuperHyperClique for N SHF; 3676
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 3677
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 3678
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal Failed 3679
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3680
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 2
. 3681
Thus 3682
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 Failed SuperHyperClique for 3683
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 3684
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 3685
bn
2 c+1
Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 3686
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3687
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 3689
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 3690
SuperHyperSet. Then 3691
bn
2c
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E); 3693
154/168
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 3694
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 3695
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal Failed SuperHyperClique 3696
for N SHF : (V, E). 3697
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 3698
Thus 3699
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 Failed SuperHyperClique for 3700
bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3701
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
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3702
bn
2c
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 3703
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3704
Then following statements hold; 3707
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 3708
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then S is an 3709
s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3710
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 3711
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual 3712
s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3713
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3715
SuperHyperClique. Then 3716
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3717
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 3718
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3719
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3721
155/168
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 3724
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then S is an 3725
s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique; 3726
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 3727
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual 3728
s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique. 3729
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3731
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. By S is an 3733
s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and S is a dual 3734
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 3735
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 3737
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3738
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. By S is an 3740
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and S is a dual 3741
s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 3742
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 3744
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 3745
statements hold; 3746
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3749
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 3751
Failed SuperHyperClique; 3752
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3753
r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3754
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3755
SuperHyperGraph. Then 3756
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.
156/168
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3757
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3758
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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3760
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3761
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3763
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3764
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3766
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 3767
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 3768
statements hold; 3769
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3772
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3774
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3776
r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3777
∀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
157/168
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3781
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3783
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3785
∀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.
3786
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3788
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 3789
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3792
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 3794
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3797
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3799
∀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
158/168
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3801
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3803
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3805
∀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.
3806
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3808
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 3809
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3812
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 3814
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3815
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3817
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 3819
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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3826
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3829
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 3831
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3833
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3835
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3837
2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3840
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3842
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3844
160/168
Then 3845
∀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.
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3847
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3849
Then 3850
∀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.
3851
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 3853
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3855
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3857
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3859
2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3862
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 3864
∀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.
161/168
∀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.
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 3875
Recognition 3876
The cancer is the extreme disease but the extreme model is going to figure out what’s 3877
going on this extreme phenomenon. The special extreme case of this extreme disease is 3878
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 3879
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 3880
matter of mind. The extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some extreme 3881
treatments for this extreme disease. 3882
In the following, some extreme steps are extreme devised on this disease. 3883
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The extreme recognition of the cancer in the 3884
long-term extreme function. 3885
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the extreme 3886
model [it’s called extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long extreme cycle of the 3887
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 3888
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 3889
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 3890
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 3891
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s 3892
done. 3893
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific extreme models, which are 3894
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general extreme models. The 3895
moves and the extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 3896
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an extreme 3897
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 3898
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 3899
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique or the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in 3900
those neutrosophic extreme SuperHyperModels. 3901
162/168
Figure 27. An extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
8 Case 1: The Initial extreme Steps Toward 3902
extreme SuperHyperBipartite as extreme 3903
SuperHyperModel 3904
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the extreme Figure (27), the extreme 3905
SuperHyperBipartite is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. 3906
By using the extreme Figure (27) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic 3907
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 3908
The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous 3909
extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme 3910
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is 3911
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 3912
9 Case 2: The Increasing extreme Steps Toward 3913
extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as extreme 3914
SuperHyperModel 3915
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the extreme Figure (28), the extreme 3916
SuperHyperMultipartite is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. 3917
163/168
Figure 28. An extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the extreme Figure (28) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic 3918
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 3919
The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous 3920
result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme 3921
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (28), 3922
10 Open Problems 3924
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 3925
The Failed SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique are 3926
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 3927
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 3928
recognitions? 3929
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to Failed SuperHyperClique 3930
and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique? 3931
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 3932
compute them? 3933
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the Failed 3934
SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique? 3935
164/168
Problem 10.5. The Failed SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed 3936
SuperHyperClique do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based 3937
on Failed SuperHyperClique, are there else? 3938
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 3939
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 3940
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 3941
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 3942
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 3943
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 3944
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 3945
highlighted. 3946
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 3947
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the Failed 3948
SuperHyperClique. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 3949
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 3950
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 3951
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, finds the convenient background to implement 3952
some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 3953
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 3954
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 3955
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 3956
Failed SuperHyperClique, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 3957
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the Failed 3958
SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The clarifications, 3959
instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the 3960
literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 3961
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 3962
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 3963
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 3964
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 3965
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 3966
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 3967
called “ Failed SuperHyperClique” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 3968
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 3969
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and advantages of this
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. Failed SuperHyperClique
3. Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
3970
research are pointed out. 3971
165/168
References 3972
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3973
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 3974
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 3975
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 3976
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 3977
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3978
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3979
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3980
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3981
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3982
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3983
(2022) 242-263. 3984
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3985
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3986
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3987
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3988
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3989
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3990
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3991
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3992
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3993
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3994
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3995
6. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3996
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3997
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3998
7. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3999
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4000
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4001
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4002
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4003
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 4004
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4005
9. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4006
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4007
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4008
10. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4009
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4010
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 4011
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4012
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4014
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4015
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4016
166/168
12. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 4017
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4018
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4019
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 4020
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 4021
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 4022
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4023
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4024
14. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4025
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 4026
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4027
15. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4028
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4029
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4030
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4031
16. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 4032
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 4033
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4034
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4035
17. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4036
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 4037
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30092.80004). 4038
18. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 4039
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 4040
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) Failed 4041
SuperHyperClique”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 4042
19. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4043
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4044
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4045
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4046
20. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4047
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4048
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 4049
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4051
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4052
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4053
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4054
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4055
23. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4056
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 4057
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4058
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4059
24. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4060
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4061
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4062
167/168
25. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4063
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4064
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4065
10.13140/RG.2.2.11669.16487). 4066
26. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4067
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4068
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4069
27. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4070
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4071
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4072
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4073
28. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 4074
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 4075
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 4076
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 4077
29. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 4078
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 4079
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 4080
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 4081
30. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 4082
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 4083
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 4084
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 4085
31. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 4086
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 4087
32. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 4088
(2016) 86-101. 4089
33. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 4090
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 4091
34. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 4092
168/168
View publication stats

Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides The Failures On The Cancer's Recognition in The Perfect Connections of Cancer's Attacks by SuperHyperModels Named (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

Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides The Failures On The Cancer's Recognition in The Perfect Connections of Cancer's Attacks by SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer's

Preprint · January 2023

215 PUBLICATIONS 1,087 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

On Combinatorics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on 2

the Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of 3

Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named 4

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

SuperHyperClique and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique . Two different types of 11

SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13

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

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16

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

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

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

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

and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperClique” 30

C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 31

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

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

Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a maximal Failed 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 Expression, 37

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

“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a maximal 39

neutrosophic Failed 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”. The 45

SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s neither empty 46

extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 48

Failed SuperHyperClique. S The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 49

SuperHyperVertices, S is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 50

SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, S 51

is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme 52

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 53

the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 54

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some 55

extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme 56

SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, S{z}. There’s not only three 57

extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 58

non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme 59

type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme 60

SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme 61

SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S doesn’t have less than four 62

SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 63

simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To 64

sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S is the 65

non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 66

SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 67

SuperHyperVertices, S is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an 68

extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 69

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme 70

SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme 71

Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s 72

the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 73

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount 74

extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 75