The Focus On The Partitions Obtained by Parallel Moves in The Cancer's Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/367156277
The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer's Extreme
Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) S...
Preprint · January 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
220 PUBLICATIONS 1,205 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 15 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 2
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of 3
Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on 4
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 5
Henry Garrett 7
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 8
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 9
1 abstract 10
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 11
SuperHyperMatching and Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching . Two different types of 12
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 13
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 14
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 15
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 16
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 17
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 18
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 19
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 20
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 21
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 22
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 23
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 24
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 25
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 26
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 27
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 28
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 29
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 30
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an extreme 31
SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 32
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 33
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 34
SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic 35
SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 36
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 37
neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 38
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 39
no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 40
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an extreme SuperHyperMatching 41
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 42
N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined 43
as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 44
1/231
SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge 45
and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and 46
the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 47
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 48
N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic 49
coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic 50
cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality 51
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not 52
to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 53
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 54
neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; an 55
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 56
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 57
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 58
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 59
SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 60
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 61
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic 62
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 63
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 64
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an extreme 65
R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 66
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 67
coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 68
high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 69
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 70
SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic 71
R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 72
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 73
the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 74
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 75
cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic 76
SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 77
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 78
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly 79
corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 80
δ−SuperHyperMatching is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 81
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) 82
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 83
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 84
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 85
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperMatching is a 86
maximal neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality 87
such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 88
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 89
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; and 90
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S 91
is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is a 92
neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a 93
SuperHyperMatching . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 94
SuperHyperMatching more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 95
SuperHyperMatching, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperMatching 96
”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 97
2/231
the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels 98
to assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperMatching . It’s redefined a neutrosophic 99
SuperHyperMatching if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 100
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 101
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of 102
Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its 103
Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 104
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 105
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 106
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 107
based on a SuperHyperMatching . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 108
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 109
have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperMatching, then it’s officially 110
called a “SuperHyperMatching” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperMatching . There 111
are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a 112
“SuperHyperMatching ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 113
there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 114
SuperHyperMatching . For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, 115
there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” and a 116
“neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 117
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 118
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 119
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 120
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperMatching are redefined to a “neutrosophic 121
SuperHyperMatching” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” 122
version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results 123
to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching more understandable. Assume a 124
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the 125
intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 126
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 127
“neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 128
SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic 129
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 130
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” where it’s the 131
strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperMatching amid the 132
maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperMatching .] 133
SuperHyperMatching . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and 134
the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic 135
SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 136
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two 137
exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 138
given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 139
amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 140
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two 141
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only 142
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these 143
SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 144
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 145
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 146
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 147
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 148
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 149
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 150
3/231
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 151
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 152
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 153
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In 154
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 155
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 156
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 157
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 158
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 159
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 160
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 161
said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 162
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 163
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 164
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 165
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 166
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 167
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperMatching or the strongest 168
SuperHyperMatching in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 169
SuperHyperMatching, called SuperHyperMatching, and the strongest 170
SuperHyperMatching, called neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, some general results 171
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have 172
only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 173
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 174
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 175
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with Extreme 176
SuperHyperMatching theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 177
theory are proposed. 178
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching, Cancer’s 179
Recognition 180
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 181
2 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
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 199
4/231
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 Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s 229
Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 230
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 231
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 232
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), 233
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 234
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 235
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 236
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [9] by Henry 237
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 238
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 239
Beyond” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 240
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 241
” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 242
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 243
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 244
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 245
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 246
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 247
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 248
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 249
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 250
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 251
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [15] by 252
5/231
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 253
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [16] by 254
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 255
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 256
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 257
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 258
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett 259
(2022), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 260
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 261
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2023), 262
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 263
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 264
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 265
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 266
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [21] by 267
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 268
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 269
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [22] by Henry 270
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 271
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 272
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2023), 273
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 274
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 275
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 276
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 277
in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 278
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 279
Ref. [26] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 280
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 281
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett (2022), 282
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 283
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 284
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 285
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 286
in Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 287
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 288
in Ref. [30] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to 289
Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 290
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2022), there 291
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 292
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 293
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 294
Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 295
than 2347 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 296
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 297
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 298
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 299
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 300
in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 301
than 3048 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 302
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 303
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 304
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 305
6/231
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 306
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 307
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 308
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 309
3 Motivation and Contributions 310
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 311
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 312
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 313
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 314
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 315
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 316
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 317
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 318
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 319
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 320
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 321
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 322
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 323
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 324
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 325
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 326
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 327
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 328
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 329
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 330
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 331
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 332
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 333
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 334
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 335
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 336
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 337
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 338
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 339
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 340
formally called “ SuperHyperMatching” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 341
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 342
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 343
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 344
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 345
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 346
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 347
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 348
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 349
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 350
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 351
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 352
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 353
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 354
either the optimal SuperHyperMatching or the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching in 355
7/231
those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond 356
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two 357
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 358
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 359
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 360
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 361
Question 3.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 362
find the “ amount of SuperHyperMatching” of either individual of cells or the groups of 363
cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 364
SuperHyperMatching” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 365
cells? 366
Question 3.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 367
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 368
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 369
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 370
SuperHyperMatching” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” on “SuperHyperGraph” 371
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations 372
to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion 373
with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to 374
make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some 375
results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, 376
“Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 377
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 378
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 379
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 380
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 381
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 382
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 383
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperMatching and 384
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperMatching” 385
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. In the sense of tackling on getting results 386
and in order to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 387
SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 388
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 389
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 390
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 391
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 392
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 393
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 394
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 395
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 396
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 397
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 398
SuperHyperMatching”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”, “Results on 399
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 400
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 401
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 402
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperMatching”. The 403
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 404
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 405
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 406
8/231
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 407
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 408
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 409
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 410
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 411
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 412
4 Preliminaries 413
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 414
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 415
Definition 4.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [35],Definition 2.1,p.87). 416
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 417
+
]− 0, 1 [. 418
Definition 4.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 6,p.2). 419
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 4.3. 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 4.4. 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 4.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [37],Definition 420
3,p.291). 421
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 422
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 423
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 424
9/231
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 425
1, 2, . . . , n); 426
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 427
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 428
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 429
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 430
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 431
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 432
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 433
(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 . 434
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 435
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 436
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 437
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 438
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 439
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 440
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 441
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 442
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 443
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 444
Definition 4.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 445
(Ref. [37],Section 4,pp.291-292). 446
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 447
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 448
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 449
could be characterized as follow-up items. 450
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 451
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 452
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 453
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 454
HyperEdge; 455
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 456
SuperEdge; 457
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 458
SuperHyperEdge. 459
10/231
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 460
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 461
Definition 4.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [36], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 462
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 463
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 464
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 465
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 466
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 467
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 468
Definition 4.8. 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 4.9. 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 4.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 469
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 470
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 471
0
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 472
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 473
1, 2, . . . , n); 474
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 475
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 476
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 477
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 478
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 479
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 480
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 481
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 482
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 483
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 484
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 485
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 486
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 487
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 488
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 489
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 490
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 491
11/231
Definition 4.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 492
(Ref. [37],Section 4,pp.291-292). 493
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 494
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 495
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 496
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 498
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 499
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 500
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 501
HyperEdge; 502
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 503
SuperEdge; 504
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 505
SuperHyperEdge. 506
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 507
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 508
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 509
Definition 4.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 510
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 511
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to 512
have more understandable. 513
Definition 4.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 514
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 515
(i). It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 516
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 517
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 518
given SuperHyperEdges; 519
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 520
SuperHyperEdges; 521
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 522
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 523
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 524
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 525
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 526
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 527
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 528
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 529
common SuperVertex. 530
12/231
Definition 4.14. 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 531
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 532
Vs if either of following conditions hold: 533
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 534
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 535
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 536
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 537
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 538
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 539
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 540
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 541
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 542
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 543
Definition 4.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 544
s). 545
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; 547
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 548
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 549
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called neutrosophic 550
SuperHyperPath . 551
Definition 4.16. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching). 552
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 553
(i) an extreme SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 554
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 555
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 556
SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge 557
to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; 558
13/231
(ii) a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 559
SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 562
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 563
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; 564
(iii) an extreme SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 565
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 566
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the 567
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 568
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s 569
no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the 570
power is corresponded to its coefficient; 571
(iv) a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) 572
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 573
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 574
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 575
SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 576
such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic 577
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 578
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 579
neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; 580
(v) an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 581
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 582
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 583
SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge 584
to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; 585
(vi) a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 586
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in 589
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 590
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; 591
(vii) an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) 592
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 593
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the 594
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 595
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 596
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in 597
a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; 598
(viii) a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial 599
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 600
neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined 601
as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 602
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in 604
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 605
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 606
neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. 607
14/231
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.20)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
Definition 4.17. ((neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperMatching). 608
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 609
(i) an δ−SuperHyperMatching is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 610
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 611
(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 612
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (4.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (4.2)
The Expression (4.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 613
Expression (4.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 614
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperMatching is a maximal neutrosophic of 615
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 616
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 617
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 618
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (4.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (4.4)
The Expression (4.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 619
And the Expression (4.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 620
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 621
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, there’s a need to 622
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 623
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 624
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 625
Definition 4.18. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 626
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 627
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 628
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 629
understandable. 630
Definition 4.19. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 631
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 632
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 633
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic neutrosophic 634
SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic 635
SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic 636
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) 637
holds. 638
15/231
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(4.19)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.20)
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a SuperHyperMatching. Since there’s 639
more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperMatching more understandable. 640
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, there’s a need to 641
“redefine” the notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 642
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 643
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 644
Definition 4.20. Assume a SuperHyperMatching. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 645
SuperHyperMatching if the Table (3) holds. 646
5 Extreme SuperHyperMatching 647
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperMatching, is up. Thus the non-obvious 648
extreme SuperHyperMatching, S is up. The obvious simple extreme 649
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching, not: S is the extreme 650
SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a 651
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 652
the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 653
“neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” 654
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 655
extreme SuperHyperMatching, 656
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 657
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. 658
But all only non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme 659
SuperHyperMatching amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme 660
type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 661
ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured on the Figures. 662
Example 5.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 663
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 664
16/231
• On the Figure (1), the extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme 665
SuperHyperMatching, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty extreme 666
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an 667
extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, 668
there’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The extreme 669
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is extreme isolated means that there’s no extreme 670
SuperHyperEdge has it as an extreme endpoint. Thus the extreme 671
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given extreme SuperHyperMatching. 672
C(N SHG) = {E4 } is an extreme SuperHyperMatching.

C(N SHG) = z is an extreme SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V1 , V2 , V4 } is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching.
C(N SHG) = z 3 is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 673
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 674
of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 675
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 676

is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 677
The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 678

is an extreme SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an extreme 680
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 681
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of 682
extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no extreme 683
SuperHyperVertex of an extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 684
extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only 685
two extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. 686
Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperMatching is up. The obvious simple 687
extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperMatching is an 688
extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the 689
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 690

Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 691
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 692
17/231
extreme SuperHyperMatching is up. To sum them up, the extreme 693
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 694

Is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 695
SuperHyperMatching. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 696

Is an extreme SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 698
ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices 699
such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme 700
SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme 701
SuperHyperMatching and it’s an extreme SuperHyperMatching. Since it’s 702
extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only 706
less than three extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 707
SuperHyperSet, 708

Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperMatching, 709

Is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 710
SuperHyperMatching, not: 711

Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 712

18/231
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 713
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 714
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 715
is only and only 719

• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperMatching, is up. 720
E1 and E3 SuperHyperMatching are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a 721
loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 722
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 723
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 724
an endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 725
extreme SuperHyperMatching. 726



19/231



SuperHyperSet, 762

20/231




E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 775
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 776
namely, E4 . 777

21/231





22/231
SuperHyperSet, 813





23/231
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperMatching, is up. 825
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 826
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 827
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 828
C(N SHG) = {E4 , E2 } is an extreme SuperHyperMatching.

C(N SHG) = 2z 2 is an extreme SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 } is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching.



24/231


SuperHyperSet, 864



25/231


There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 877
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 878
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 879
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperMatching = {E1 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z 1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 5 .


26/231
extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are are only 892
same extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. 893
extreme SuperHyperSet includes only same extreme SuperHyperVertices. But 896
the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 897

Doesn’t have less than same SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 899
SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 900

Is the obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 903

extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are only less 914
than same extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 915
SuperHyperSet, 916

27/231
Thus the obvious extreme SuperHyperMatching, 917

SuperHyperMatching, is: 919

Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, is: 920

obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 923

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is mentioned as 928
the SuperHyperModel ESHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 929
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. 931
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atching = {Ei }22

i=12 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = 5z 11 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperM atching = {Vi }22
i=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 22 .
28/231

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
Is an extreme SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an extreme 939

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
29/231
SuperHyperSet, 967

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
30/231
i=12 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = 2z 7 + z 3 .
i=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = 3z 14 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
31/231

i=15 .
i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 1015

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
32/231

i=15 .
i=1 .
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the 1029
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. The 1030
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1031

i=15 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = +z 3 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
33/231

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 1063

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
34/231

i=15 .
i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1075
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 1076
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 1079
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 1080

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
35/231

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 1116

i=12 .
i=1 .
36/231

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of 1128
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 1129

i=15 .
i=1 .
37/231

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
38/231
SuperHyperSet, 1166

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1178
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1179
39/231
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atching = {E1 , E3 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atching = {E6 , E7 , E8 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 3 + z 2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperM atching = {Vi }6i=1 .



40/231

SuperHyperSet, 1216




41/231

In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1228
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atching = {Ei }6i=2 .

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
i=1 .

i=1 .
42/231

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 1265

i=1 .

i=1 .
43/231

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .


44/231



45/231
SuperHyperSet, 1314





46/231
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atching = {E1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = 2z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atching = {Vi }3i=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = 2z 2 .



47/231

SuperHyperSet, 1363




48/231

In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this 1375
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme graph G : (V, E) thus 1376
the notions in both settings are coincided. 1377
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atching = {E2i−1 }3i=1 .


49/231



SuperHyperSet, 1414


50/231



In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as 1426
Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 1427
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atching = {E2i−1 }3i=1 .

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atching = {Vi }15
i=1 .

i=1 .
51/231

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 1464

i=1 .
52/231

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
53/231

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
54/231
SuperHyperSet, 1513

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as 1525
Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figure (17). 1526
55/231

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atching = {E2i }3i=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = 2z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atching = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .



56/231

SuperHyperSet, 1563




57/231

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1575


58/231



SuperHyperSet, 1612

59/231




60/231

C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atching = {Vi }si=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .




61/231
SuperHyperSet, 1661





62/231
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperMatching
in the Example (5.1)
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is the cardinality
of
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching since neither amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges nor
amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the extreme number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the extreme
SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

propose property such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex of an extreme
SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme
SuperHyperVertices but the maximum extreme cardinality indicates that these extreme
type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the extreme lower bound in the term of extreme
sharpness. In other words, the extreme SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }}
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but

sometimes the extreme SuperHyperSet
63/231

64/231

65/231

66/231

67/231

68/231

69/231

70/231

71/231

72/231
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the
generality of the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we
assume in the worst case, literally,
Is a quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp

bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the

connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality.
There are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the
setting of the graph titled path and cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely
direction star as the examples-classes, are well-known classes in that setting and they
could be considered as the examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight
bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 1674
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 1675
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 1676
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 1677
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the extreme 1678
73/231
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 1679
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 1680
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 1681
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1682
are coming up. 1683
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching.
The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. The

extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching 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 instead of all given by extreme SuperHyperMatching
is related to the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperMatching is up. The
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperMatching is
an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only one extreme SuperHyperVertex. But the
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching
is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme

R-SuperHyperMatching. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching 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
instead of all given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme
74/231
SuperHyperMatching and it’s an extreme SuperHyperMatching. Since it’s
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount
extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet
called the extreme SuperHyperMatching. There isn’t only less than two extreme
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious extreme R-SuperHyperMatching,
is up. The non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme

SuperHyperMatching, not:
Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 1684
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1685
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1686
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1687
“neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching” 1688
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching, 1690
is only and only
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also it’s
an extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching amid those
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperMatching, are
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph


of
1692
75/231
Proposition 5.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then the extreme number of R-SuperHyperMatching has, the least cardinality, the lower
sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperMatching with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1693
cardinality. 1694
Proof. The extreme structure of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching decorates the

extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any extreme connections so as this
extreme style implies different versions of extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum
extreme cardinality in the terms of extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower
extreme bound is to have the maximum extreme groups of extreme SuperHyperVertices
have perfect extreme connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of
this extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the used
extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its extreme properties taken from the fact that
it’s simple. If there’s no more than one extreme SuperHyperVertex in the targeted
extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no extreme connection. Furthermore, the extreme
existence of one extreme SuperHyperVertex has no extreme effect to talk about the
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. Since at least two extreme SuperHyperVertices involve
to make a title in the extreme background of the extreme SuperHyperGraph. The
extreme SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least
two extreme SuperHyperVertices make the extreme version of extreme SuperHyperEdge.
Thus in the extreme setting of non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at
least one extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is
used as extreme adjective for the initial extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no
extreme appearance of the loop extreme version of the extreme SuperHyperEdge and
this extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The extreme adjective “loop” on
the basic extreme framework engages one extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never
happens in this extreme setting. With these extreme bases, on an extreme
SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least an
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme cardinality of an extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme
cardinality at least an extreme SuperHyperEdge. Assume an extreme SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {z}. This extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching
since either the extreme SuperHyperGraph is an obvious extreme SuperHyperModel
thus it never happens since there’s no extreme usage of this extreme framework and
even more there’s no extreme connection inside or the extreme SuperHyperGraph isn’t
obvious and as its consequences, there’s an extreme contradiction with the term
“extreme R-SuperHyperMatching” since the maximum extreme cardinality never
happens for this extreme style of the extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s
no extreme connection inside as mentioned in first extreme case in the forms of
drawback for this selected extreme SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This extreme case implies having the extreme style of on-quasi-triangle
extreme style on the every extreme elements of this extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely,
the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that some extreme amount of the extreme SuperHyperVertices
are on-quasi-triangle extreme style. The extreme cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet
76/231
Is the maximum in comparison to the extreme SuperHyperSet
But the lower extreme bound is up. Thus the minimum extreme cardinality of the
maximum extreme cardinality ends up the extreme discussion. The first extreme term
refers to the extreme setting of the extreme SuperHyperGraph but this key point is
enough since there’s an extreme SuperHyperClass of an extreme SuperHyperGraph has
no on-quasi-triangle extreme style amid some amount of its extreme
SuperHyperVertices. This extreme setting of the extreme SuperHyperModel proposes
an extreme SuperHyperSet has only some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices from
one extreme SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no extreme amount of extreme
SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these extreme
SuperHyperVertices. The extreme cardinality of this extreme SuperHyperSet is the
maximum and the extreme case is occurred in the minimum extreme situation. To sum
them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum extreme cardinality such that
Contains some extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching for the extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 1695
extreme background in the extreme terms of worst extreme case and the common theme 1696
of the lower extreme bound occurred in the specific extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 1697
extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are extreme free-quasi-triangle. 1698
are coming up. 1700



77/231

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



78/231
is only and only

To sum them up, assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then the extreme number of R-SuperHyperMatching has, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperMatching with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1709
cardinality. 1710
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is 1711
at least the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme 1712
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 1713
words, the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 1714
extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme 1715
SuperHyperMatching in some cases but the maximum number of the extreme 1716
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, has 1717
the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. 1718
Proof. Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme number of

the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least no
extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those extreme
SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in an extreme
R-SuperHyperMatching. Those extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in
an extreme style-R-SuperHyperMatching. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the extreme SuperHyperVertices of an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) .

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
79/231
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
if and only if Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and only
one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the extreme
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the extreme SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching but
with slightly differences in the maximum extreme cardinality amid those extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|extreme cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. Let

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 1719
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
1720
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an extreme SuperHyperMatching, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme cardinality of the extreme
R-SuperHyperMatching is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching 1721
is at least the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme 1722
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 1723
other words, the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 1724
80/231
maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme 1725
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1727
has the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme 1728
R-SuperHyperMatching. 1729
are coming up. 1731




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
81/231

is only and only



of
82/231
To sum them up, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an
extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 1749
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 1750
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 1751
any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 1752
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme 1753
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices in 1754
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 1755
of them but not all of them. 1756
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 1757
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 1758
some issues about the extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 1759
remarks on the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 1760
there’s distinct amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of extreme 1761
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1762
SuperHyperVertices but this extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1763
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 1764
doesn’t have maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 1765
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 1766
extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching 1767
where the extreme completion of the extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 1768
literarily, an extreme embedded R-SuperHyperMatching. The SuperHyperNotions of 1769
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 1770
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1771
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1772
SuperHyperSets have the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1773
extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of extreme 1774
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum extreme style of the embedded 1775
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. The interior types of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1776
are deciders. Since the extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by 1777
the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and 1778
more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the extreme SuperHyperSet for any 1779
distinct types of extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. 1780
Thus extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one extreme 1781
SuperHyperEdge and in extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior extreme 1782
SuperHyperVertices in that extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded extreme 1783
SuperHyperMatching, there’s the usage of exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices since 1784
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 1785
83/231
relevant than the title “interior”. One extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, 1786
inside. Thus, the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 1787
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 1788
implying the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. The extreme R-SuperHyperMatching 1789
with the exclusion of the exclusion of all extreme SuperHyperVertices in one extreme 1790
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching with the 1791
inclusion of all extreme SuperHyperVertices in one extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an 1792
extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1793
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge 1794
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme 1795
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching minus all 1796
extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1797
there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1798
extreme SuperHyperVertices in an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, minus all 1799
extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1800
are coming up. 1802



84/231
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

is only and only

85/231


of
To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 1811
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 1812
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 1813
any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 1814
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme 1815
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices 1816
in an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 1817
some of them but not all of them. 1818
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1819
all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme 1820
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching if for any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme 1821
SuperHyperVertex, some interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme 1822
SuperHyperNeighbors with no extreme exception at all minus all extreme 1823
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1824
Proof. The main definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching has two titles. An 1825
extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching and its corresponded quasi-maximum extreme 1826
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any extreme 1827
number, there’s an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching with that quasi-maximum 1828
extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded extreme 1829
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1830
extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the extreme 1831
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatchings for all extreme numbers less than its extreme 1832
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the extreme SuperHyperMatching ends 1833
up but this essence starts up in the terms of the extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, 1834
again and more in the operations of collecting all the extreme 1835
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatchings acted on the all possible used formations of the extreme 1836
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one extreme number. This extreme number is considered 1837
as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-SuperHyperMatchings. Let 1838
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme SuperHyperMatching be an extreme 1839
number, an extreme SuperHyperSet and an extreme SuperHyperMatching. Then 1840
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme SuperHyperMatching ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the extreme SuperHyperMatching is 1841
86/231
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1842
GExtreme SuperHyperMatching ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1843
technical definition for the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 1844
GExtreme SuperHyperMatching =
{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 1845
SuperHyperMatching poses the upcoming expressions. 1846
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1847
= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1848

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1849


87/231
1850
= zExtreme Number |

1851

1852

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “extreme 1853
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the extreme 1854
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1855
incident to an extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “extreme 1856
Quasi-SuperHyperMatching” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “extreme 1857
Quasi-SuperHyperMatching” since “extreme Quasi-SuperHyperMatching” happens 1858
“extreme SuperHyperMatching” in an extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1859
and background but “extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “extreme 1860
SuperHyperMatching” in an extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1861
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the extreme 1862
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “extreme 1863
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “extreme Quasi-SuperHyperMatching”, and “extreme 1864
SuperHyperMatching” are up. 1865
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1866
GExtreme SuperHyperMatching be an extreme number, an extreme 1867
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an extreme SuperHyperMatching and the new terms are 1868
up. 1869

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
88/231
1870
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1871
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1872
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = max zExtreme Number }.
And with go back to initial structure, 1873


1874
= zExtreme Number |

1875
= maxzExtreme Number

1876

89/231
Thus, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1877
extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching if for 1878
any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1879
extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1880
extreme exception at all minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1881
are coming up. 1883




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
90/231

is only and only



of
91/231
To sum them up, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all 1892
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme 1893
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1898
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices 1899
and all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge 1900
where there’s any of them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s 1901
all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all extreme 1902
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1903
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1904
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme 1905
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1906
Consider all extreme numbers of those extreme SuperHyperVertices from that extreme 1907
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1908
exclude to any given extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. 1909
Consider there’s an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching with the least cardinality, the 1910
lower sharp extreme bound for extreme cardinality. Assume a connected extreme 1911
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1912
SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme 1913
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some 1914
extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. 1915
Since it doesn’t have the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 1916
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme 1917
SuperHyperEdge to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The extreme 1918
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum 1919
extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices but 1920
it isn’t an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. Since it doesn’t do the extreme procedure 1921
such that such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme 1922
SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside 1923
implying there’s, sometimes in the connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1924
ESHG : (V, E), an extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, 1925
to that extreme SuperHyperVertex in the extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do 1926
“the extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the 1927
intended extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of extreme 1928
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious extreme R-SuperHyperMatching, VESHE 1929
is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1930
R-SuperHyperMatching, VESHE , is an extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only 1931
all extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of extreme pairs are titled 1932
extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1933
ESHG : (V, E). Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1934
VESHE , is the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an extreme 1935
SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1937
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any extreme 1938
R-SuperHyperMatching only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and all 1939
exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge where 1940
there’s any of them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 1941
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all extreme 1942
92/231
are coming up. 1946




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
93/231

is only and only



of
94/231
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1955
Any extreme R-SuperHyperMatching only contains all interior extreme 1956
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1957
extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible extreme 1958
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no 1959
exception minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but 1960
everything is possible about extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme 1961
SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1962
Remark 5.8. The words “ extreme SuperHyperMatching” and “extreme 1963
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum extreme type-style. In other words, 1964
they refer to the maximum extreme SuperHyperNumber and the extreme 1965
SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. 1966
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1967
Consider an extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an extreme SuperHyperMatching 1968
has the members poses only one extreme representative in an extreme 1969
quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 1970
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an 1971
extreme SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (5.7), the extreme results 1972
are up. Thus on a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an 1973
extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an extreme SuperHyperMatching has the 1974
members poses only one extreme representative in an extreme 1975
quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 1976
6 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1977
The previous extreme approaches apply on the upcoming extreme results on extreme 1978
SuperHyperClasses. 1979
Proposition 6.1. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1980
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching-style with the maximum extreme 1981
SuperHyperCardinality is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 1982
SuperHyperVertices. 1983
Proposition 6.2. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1984
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 1985
extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions in the form of interior 1986
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdges not excluding 1987
only any interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the extreme unique 1988
SuperHyperEdges. An extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme number of 1989
all the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices. Also, 1990
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atching

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
95/231
SuperHyperSet





bound of
96/231
The extreme structure of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching decorates the extreme

SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any extreme connections so as this extreme
style implies different versions of extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum extreme
cardinality in the terms of extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower

97/231

Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme number of the

extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least no
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
98/231

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2004

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 2014
99/231
The main definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching has two titles. An 2058
100/231


= zExtreme Number |
[zExtreme

And then, 2081

101/231


2083
= zExtreme Number |

2084

2085

102/231
up. 2102

2103
= zExtreme Number |
2104
2105


2107
= zExtreme Number |

2108
= max
zExtreme Number

103/231
2109

are coming up. 2116




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
104/231
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

is only and only


105/231
of
Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme 2131
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperMatching, is up. There’s neither empty 2171
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of 2172
106/231
extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple extreme 2173
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. The extreme SuperHyperSet 2174
of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 2175

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. The 2176

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 2179
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 2180
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex 2181
of an extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for 2182
all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two extreme SuperHyperVertices 2183
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme 2184
SuperHyperMatching is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 2185
extreme SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two 2186
extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2187

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
extreme SuperHyperMatching is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of 2191
107/231
the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 2192

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such 2197
that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices 2198
given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperMatching 2199
and it’s an extreme SuperHyperMatching. Since it’s 2200
all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three extreme 2204
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, 2205

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
108/231

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 2211
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 2212

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 6.3. In the Figure (21), the connected extreme SuperHyperPath 2218
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 2219
extreme SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperMatching. 2220
Proposition 6.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 2221
Then an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the 2222
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions on the form of 2223
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the same extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods 2224
not excluding any extreme SuperHyperVertex. An extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching 2225
109/231
Figure 21. An extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of extreme Super-
HyperMatching in the Example (6.3)
has the extreme half number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the 2226
maximum extreme cardinality. Also, 2227

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

SuperHyperSet

110/231



bound of

111/231

112/231

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
113/231
E
2241

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
114/231


115/231
= zExtreme Number |

And then, 2318



116/231
2320
= zExtreme Number |

2321

2322

up. 2339

117/231
2340
= zExtreme Number |
2341
2342


2344
= zExtreme Number |

2345

2346

118/231
are coming up. 2353




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
119/231

is only and only



of
120/231
121/231

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
122/231

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
123/231

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 6.5. In the Figure (22), the connected extreme SuperHyperCycle 2455
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, in 2456
the extreme SuperHyperModel (22), is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 2457
Proposition 6.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 2458
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2459
extreme SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to an extreme SuperHyperEdge. An extreme 2460
124/231
Figure 22. An extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme
SuperHyperMatching in the extreme Example (6.5)
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme number of the extreme cardinality of the 2461
one extreme SuperHyperEdge. Also, 2462

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X
= z |E|Extreme Cardinality | E:∈EESHG:(V,E) .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atching = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 , . . . .

C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = z s + z t +, . . . .

SuperHyperSet

125/231



bound of

126/231

127/231

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
128/231
E
2476

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
129/231


130/231
= zExtreme Number |

And then, 2553



131/231
2555
= zExtreme Number |

2556

2557

up. 2574

132/231
2575
= zExtreme Number |
2576
2577


2579
= zExtreme Number |

2580

2581

133/231
are coming up. 2588




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
134/231

is only and only



of
135/231
136/231

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

137/231

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

138/231

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

Example 6.7. In the Figure (23), the connected extreme SuperHyperStar 2690
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by 2691
the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 2692
connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel 2693
(23), is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 2694
Proposition 6.8. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 2695
Then an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2696
extreme SuperHyperVertices with no extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme 2697
139/231
Figure 23. An extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme
SuperHyperMatching in the extreme Example (6.7)
SuperHyperVertices titled extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. An extreme 2698
R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme maximum number of on extreme cardinality of 2699
the minimum SuperHyperPart minus those have common extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 2700
and not unique extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 2701

min |PESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .

SuperHyperSet

140/231




bound of

141/231


142/231

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
143/231
Or
E
2715

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
144/231


145/231
= zExtreme Number |

And then, 2792



146/231
2794
= zExtreme Number |

2795

2796

up. 2813

147/231
2814
= zExtreme Number |
2815
2816


2818
= zExtreme Number |

2819

2820

148/231
are coming up. 2827




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
149/231

is only and only



of
150/231
151/231

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
152/231

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
153/231

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 6.9. In the extreme Figure (24), the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2929
ESHB : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme 2930
SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme 2931
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in 2932
the extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 2933
Proposition 6.10. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2934
ESHM : (V, E). Then an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet 2935
of the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exception in the 2936
extreme form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from an extreme SuperHyperPart 2937
and only no exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another 2938
SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than 2939
some of them aren’t SuperHyperNeighbors to all. An extreme R-SuperHyperMatching 2940
has the extreme maximum number on all the extreme summation on the extreme 2941
cardinality of the all extreme SuperHyperParts form some SuperHyperEdges minus those 2942
make extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all or not unique. Also, 2943

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
154/231
Figure 24. An extreme SuperHyperBipartite extreme Associated to the extreme
Notions of extreme SuperHyperMatching in the Example (6.9)

SuperHyperSet



155/231

bound of

156/231

157/231
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2957

158/231
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
159/231


= zExtreme Number |
160/231
[zExtreme

And then, 3034



3036
= zExtreme Number |

3037

161/231
3038

up. 3055

3056
= zExtreme Number |
3057
3058
162/231


3060
= zExtreme Number |

3061

3062

are coming up. 3069



163/231

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



164/231
is only and only



of
165/231

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
166/231

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
167/231

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
168/231
Figure 25. An extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme
SuperHyperMatching in the Example (6.11)

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 6.11. In the Figure (25), the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 3171
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme 3172
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme 3173
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 3174
in the extreme SuperHyperModel (25), is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3175
Proposition 6.12. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 3176
Then an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 3177
extreme SuperHyperVertices, excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only no 3178
exception in the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from same extreme 3179
SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion on extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them 3180
and not all. An extreme R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme maximum number on 3181
all the extreme number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges don’t have common extreme 3182
169/231
SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3183

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

SuperHyperSet





170/231
bound of

171/231


V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
172/231
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3197

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
173/231
174/231


= zExtreme Number |
175/231
[zExtreme

And then, 3274



3276
= zExtreme Number |

3277

3278

176/231
up. 3295

3296
= zExtreme Number |
3297
3298


177/231
3300
= zExtreme Number |

3301

3302

are coming up. 3309



178/231

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

179/231
is only and only



of
180/231

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
181/231

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
182/231

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
183/231
Figure 26. An extreme SuperHyperWheel extreme Associated to the extreme Notions
of extreme SuperHyperMatching in the extreme Example (6.13)

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 6.13. In the extreme Figure (??), the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel 3411
N SHW : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme 3412
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 3413
of the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the extreme 3414
SuperHyperModel (??), is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3415
7 General Extreme Results 3416
For the SuperHyperMatching, extreme SuperHyperMatching, and the neutrosophic 3417
SuperHyperMatching, some general results are introduced. 3418
Remark 7.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is “redefined” on 3419
the positions of the alphabets. 3420
Corollary 7.2. Assume extreme SuperHyperMatching. Then 3421
N eutrosophic SuperHyperM atching =

{theSuperHyperM atchingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperM atching. }
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 3422
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 3423
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 3424
184/231
Corollary 7.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 3425
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching and 3426
SuperHyperMatching coincide. 3427
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 3429
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching if and only if it’s a SuperHyperMatching. 3430
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 3432
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 3433
Corollary 7.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 3434
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is its 3435
SuperHyperMatching and reversely. 3436
Corollary 7.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 3437
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 3438
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is 3439
its SuperHyperMatching and reversely. 3440
Corollary 7.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 3441
SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperMatching isn’t 3442
well-defined. 3443
Corollary 7.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3444
its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined if and only if its 3445
SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined. 3446
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined if and only if its 3449
SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined. 3450
Corollary 7.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 3451
SuperHyperMatching is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperMatching is 3452
well-defined. 3453
Corollary 7.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3454
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is well-defined if and only if its 3455
SuperHyperMatching is well-defined. 3456
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is well-defined if and only if its 3459
SuperHyperMatching is well-defined. 3460
Proposition 7.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 3461
is 3462
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3463
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3464
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3465
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3466
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3467
185/231
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3468
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3469
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3470
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3471
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3472
statements are equivalent. 3473
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3474
∀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 SuperHyperMatching since the 3476
following statements are equivalent. 3477
∀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 SuperHyperMatching since the following 3478
∀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 SuperHyperMatching since the 3480
∀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.
186/231
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperMatching since the following statements are 3482
equivalent. 3483
∀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.
3484
Proposition 7.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3485
∅ is 3486
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3487
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3488
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3489
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3490
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3491
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3492
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3493
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3494
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3495
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3496
∀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 SuperHyperMatching since the following 3498
∀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 SuperHyperMatching since the following 3500
187/231
∀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 SuperHyperMatching since the following 3502
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3504
∀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 SuperHyperMatching since the following 3506
∀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.
3508
Proposition 7.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 3509
independent SuperHyperSet is 3510
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3511
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3512
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3513
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3514
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3515
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3516
188/231
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 3517
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3518
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive 3520
SuperHyperMatching since the following statements are equivalent. 3521
∀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 3522
∀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 3524
∀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 3526
∀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 3528
∀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.
189/231
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 3530
∀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.
3532
Proposition 7.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3533
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 3534
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3535
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3536
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3537
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3538
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3539
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3540
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3541
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3542
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3543
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3544
SuperHyperMatching. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 3545
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 3546
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3547
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3548
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 3549
∀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 3550
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3551
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3552
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. This 3553
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3554
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3555
190/231
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3556
∀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.
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3559
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3560
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3561
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3562
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3563
Proposition 7.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3564
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 3565
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3566
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3567
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3568
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3569
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3570
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3571
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3572
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3573
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3574
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 3577
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3578
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3579
191/231
∀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 3581
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 3582
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3584
SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3585
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 3588
(i) : the SuperHyperMatching; 3589
(ii) : the SuperHyperMatching; 3590
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperMatching; 3591
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching; 3592
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching; 3593
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching. 3594
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3595
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3596
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3597
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3598
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 3601
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3602
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3603
192/231
∀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.
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3606
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3607
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. This 3608
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3609
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3610
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3611
∀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.
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3614
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3616
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3617
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 3620
(i) : the dual SuperHyperMatching; 3621
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperMatching; 3622
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperMatching; 3623
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching; 3624
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching; 3625
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching. 3626
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3627
193/231
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3629
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3630
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 3633
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3634
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3635
∀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 3637
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperUniform 3638
SuperHyperWheel. 3639
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3641
SuperHyperMatching. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3642
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 3645
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3646
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 3647
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 3648
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3652
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3653
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3654
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 3655
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 3656
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3657
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
194/231
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3658
∀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 3659
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperStar. 3660
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3661
SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3662
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching 3663
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3664
SuperHyperMatching and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or 3666
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 3667
in S. 3668
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is 3670
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3671

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3673
O(ESHG)
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3674
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3678
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3679
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3680
is a 3681
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3685
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3686
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3687
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3688
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3689
195/231
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has 3690
either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 3691
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching in a 3692
given SuperHyperStar. 3693
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3694
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3695
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3696
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3697
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3699
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3700
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3701
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3702
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3703
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar 3705
nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3706
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s an 3708
δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3709
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 3713
number of 3714
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3718
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3719
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3720
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 3721
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 3722
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3723
196/231
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 3726
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3727
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3728
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3732
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3734
SuperHyperMatching and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or 3736
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 3737
in S. 3738
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is 3740
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3741

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3743
O(ESHG)
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3744
Proposition 7.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 3746
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 3747
(iv) : SuperHyperMatching; 3751
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3752
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3753
197/231
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3754
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some 3755
SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 3756
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperMatching and number of connected component is |V − S|. 3758
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s a dual 3760
1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3761
Proposition 7.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 3763
number is at most O(ESHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 3764
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3765
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3766
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3767
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3768
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following statements 3770
are equivalent. 3771
∀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 SuperHyperMatching since the following 3772
∀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.
198/231
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following statements 3774
are equivalent. 3775
∀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 SuperHyperMatching since the following 3776
∀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 SuperHyperMatching since the following 3778
∀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 SuperHyperMatching and V is the biggest 3780
SuperHyperSet in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and 3781
the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 3782
Proposition 7.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3783
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3784
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 3785
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3789
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3791
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3792
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 3793
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3794
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
199/231
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 3796
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3797
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3798
t>
2
SuperHyperMatching. 3799
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3800
∀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 3803
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 3806
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3807
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3808
∀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 3811
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 3814
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3816
∀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 3819
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3822
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3824
∀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 3827
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching in a given 3828
200/231
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 3829
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 3830
t>
2
dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3832
∀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 3835
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching in a given 3836
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 3837
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 3838
t>
2
dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

Proposition 7.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 3840
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in 3841
the setting of dual 3842
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3846
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3847
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3848
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3849
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3850
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3852
∀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 3854
in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3855
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the 3856
201/231
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 3859
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the 3860
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 3863
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3864
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 3867
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the 3868
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 3871
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the 3872
202/231
∀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 3875
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 3878
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) 3880
and the neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 3881
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3885
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3886
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3887
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3888
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 3889
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3890
SuperHyperMatching. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, 3891
suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 3892
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3893
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3894
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperCycle. 3895
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3896
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 3898
203/231
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3899
∀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.
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperPath. 3901
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3902
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 3904
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3905
∀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.
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperWheel. 3907
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3909
Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3910
Thus the number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 3912
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3913
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 3916
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3918
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half 3926
204/231
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3927
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 3928
∀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 3931
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
in a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3934
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 3935
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching and they are chosen from different 3936
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 3937
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3938
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperMatching in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 3940
SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 3941

O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3943
SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 3944
Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3947
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 3948
t>
2
Proposition 7.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 3950
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 3951
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 3952
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 3953
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 3954
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 3955
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are 3956
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 3957
Proposition 7.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 3958
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such 3959
that 3960
205/231
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 3961
(ii) vx ∈ E. 3962
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3963
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, 3964
∀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 3965
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, 3966
∀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.
3967
Proposition 7.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 3968
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then 3969
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 3970
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 3971
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, either 3973
∀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 3974
∀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. 3975
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 3976
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, either 3977
∀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)
206/231
or 3978
∀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. 3979
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 3980
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 3981
number. 3982
Proposition 7.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3983
Then 3984
(i) Γ ≤ O; 3985
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 3986
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3987
S = V. 3988
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. For all 3989
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 3990
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 3991
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 3992
S, Γ ≤ O. 3993
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 3994
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. For all 3995
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 3996
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3997
S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3998
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3999
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 4000
Proposition 7.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4001
which is connected. Then 4002
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 4003
207/231
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4004
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4005
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4006
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. For all 4007
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4008
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 4009
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 4010
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 4011
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4012
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4013
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. For all 4014
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4015
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4016
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 4017
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 4018
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4019
Proposition 7.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 4020
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4021
SuperHyperMatching; 4022
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4023
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4024
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4025
a dual SuperHyperMatching. 4026
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 4027
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4028
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 })|
208/231
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4029
If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4030
∃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 4031
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4032
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 4034
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4035
SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4036
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 4037
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4038
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4039
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 7.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 4045
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4046
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 4047
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 4048
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4049
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4050
dual SuperHyperMatching. 4051
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 4052
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4053
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 })|
209/231
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. If 4054
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 4055
∃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 4056
SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4057
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4060
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even 4062
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4063
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 7.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 4070
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4071
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 4073
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4074
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 4075
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4076
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 4078
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4079
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 })|
210/231
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. If 4080
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 4081
∃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 4082
SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4083
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4086
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even 4088
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4089
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 7.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 4096
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4097
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4099
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4100
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4101
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 4103
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4104
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 })|
211/231
∃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 4111
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 4113
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4114
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 7.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 4121
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperMatching; 4122
(ii) Γ = 1; 4123
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 4124
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperMatching. 4125
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4126
∀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})|
212/231
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. If 4127
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4128
∃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 SuperHyperMatching. It 4129
induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4130
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s 4132
enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4133
Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4134
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 4135
Proposition 7.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 4136
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 4137
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4138
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 4139
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 4140
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 4141
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4142
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 4143

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 4144
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 4145
∀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 4146
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. If 4147

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 4148
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 4149
∀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 )|
213/231
or 4150
∀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 4151
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4152
6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a 4153
dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4154
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 4155
Proposition 7.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 4156
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4157
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 4159
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 4160
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4161
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 4163

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 4164
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 SuperHyperMatching. If 4165
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4166
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 4167
bn c+1
SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4168
Proposition 7.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 4171
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4172
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 4174
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 4175
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4176
214/231
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 4178
Thus 4179
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. If 4180
n
b c bn
2c
S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4181
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
bn2c
SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4183
Proposition 7.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 4186
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 4187
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4188
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF; 4189
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 4190
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 4191
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 4192
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). 4193
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4194
∀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 SuperHyperMatching for 4195
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4196
∃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 SuperHyperMatching for 4197
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 4198
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). 4199
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4201
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a 4202
215/231
dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose 4203
ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4204
∀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 SuperHyperMatching for 4205
N SHF : (V, E). 4206
Proposition 7.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 4207
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4208
SuperHyperSet. Then 4209
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4210
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF; 4211
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 4212
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4213
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperMatching 4214
for N SHF : (V, E). 4215
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4216
Thus 4217
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 SuperHyperMatching for 4218
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 4219
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
bn2 c+1
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 4221
Proposition 7.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 4224
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4225
SuperHyperSet. Then 4226
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4227
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E); 4228
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 4229
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4230
S={vi }i=1
216/231
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperMatching for 4231
N SHF : (V, E). 4232
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4233
Thus 4234
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 SuperHyperMatching for 4235
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4236
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 4238
Then following statements hold; 4242
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4243
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 4244
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4246
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then S is a dual 4247
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4248
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 4250
SuperHyperMatching. Then 4251
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 4252
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4253
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4254
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 4256
217/231
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4259
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 4260
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4262
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then S is a dual 4263
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperMatching. 4264
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 4266
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. By S is an 4268
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching and S is a dual 4269
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 4270
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4272
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4273
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. By S is an 4275
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching and S is a dual 4276
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 4277
Proposition 7.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 4279
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 4280
statements hold; 4281
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4284
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4286
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4288
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4289
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4290
SuperHyperGraph. Then 4291
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.
218/231
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4292
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4293
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 SuperHyperMatching. 4295
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4296
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 4298
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4299
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 4301
Proposition 7.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 4302
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 4303
statements hold; 4304
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4307
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4309
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4311
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4312
∀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
219/231
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Then 4316
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 4318
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. Then 4320
∀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.
4321
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4323
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4324
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4327
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 4329
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4332
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Then 4334
∀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
220/231
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Then 4336
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 4338
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. Then 4340
∀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.
4341
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4343
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4344
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4347
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 4349
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4350
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4352
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 4354
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 SuperHyperMatching. 4361
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. 4364
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 4366
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4368
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4370
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4372
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Then 4377
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. Then 4379
∀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.
222/231
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4381
∀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 SuperHyperMatching. Then 4383
∀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.
4384
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 4386
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4388
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4390
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4392
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 4397
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

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

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

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
223/231
∀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.
8 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 4408
Recognition 4409
The cancer is the extreme disease but the extreme model is going to figure out what’s 4410
going on this extreme phenomenon. The special extreme case of this extreme disease is 4411
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 4412
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 4413
matter of mind. The extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some extreme 4414
treatments for this extreme disease. 4415
In the following, some extreme steps are extreme devised on this disease. 4416
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The extreme recognition of the cancer in the 4417
long-term extreme function. 4418
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the extreme 4419
model [it’s called extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long extreme cycle of the 4420
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 4421
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 4422
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 4423
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 4424
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s 4425
done. 4426
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific extreme models, which are 4427
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general extreme models. The 4428
moves and the extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 4429
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an extreme 4430
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 4431
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 4432
extreme SuperHyperMatching or the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching in those 4433
neutrosophic extreme SuperHyperModels. 4434
9 Case 1: The Initial extreme Steps Toward 4435
extreme SuperHyperBipartite as extreme 4436
SuperHyperModel 4437
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the extreme Figure (27), the extreme 4438
SuperHyperBipartite is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. 4439
By using the extreme Figure (27) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic 4440
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 4441
224/231
Figure 27. An extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme
SuperHyperMatching
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous 4442
extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme 4443
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is 4444
the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 4445
10 Case 2: The Increasing extreme Steps 4446
Toward extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as 4447
extreme SuperHyperModel 4448
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the extreme Figure (28), the extreme 4449
SuperHyperMultipartite is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. 4450
By using the extreme Figure (28) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic 4451
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 4452
The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous 4453
result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme 4454
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (28), 4455
is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 4456
225/231
Figure 28. An extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme
SuperHyperMatching
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
226/231
11 Open Problems 4457
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 4458
The SuperHyperMatching and the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching are defined on 4459
a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 4460
Question 11.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 4461
recognitions? 4462
Question 11.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperMatching 4463
and the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching? 4464
Question 11.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 4465
compute them? 4466
Question 11.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 4467
SuperHyperMatching and the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching? 4468
Problem 11.5. The SuperHyperMatching and the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 4469
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on 4470
SuperHyperMatching, are there else? 4471
Problem 11.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 4472
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 4473
Problem 11.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 4474
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 4475
12 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 4476
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 4477
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 4478
highlighted. 4479
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 4480
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 4481
SuperHyperMatching. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 4482
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 4483
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 4484
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, finds the convenient background to implement some 4485
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 4486
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 4487
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 4488
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 4489
SuperHyperMatching, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 4490
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 4491
SuperHyperMatching and the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. The clarifications, 4492
instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the 4493
literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 4494
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 4495
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 4496
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 4497
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 4498
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 4499
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 4500
called “ SuperHyperMatching” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 4501
227/231
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperMatching
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 4502
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and advantages of this 4503
research are pointed out. 4504
References 4505
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4506
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 4507
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 4508
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 4509
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 4510
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 4511
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 4512
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 4513
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 4514
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 4515
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 4516
(2022) 242-263. 4517
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 4518
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 4519
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4520
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4521
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 4522
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 4523
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 4524
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 4525
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 4526
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 4527
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 4528
6. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 4529
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 4530
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 4531
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 4532
7. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 4533
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4534
228/231
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 4535
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 4536
8. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4537
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4538
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4539
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 4540
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4541
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4542
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4543
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4544
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4546
11. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4547
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4548
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4549
12. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4550
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4551
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 4552
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4553
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4555
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4556
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4557
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 4558
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4559
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4560
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 4561
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 4562
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 4563
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4564
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4565
16. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4566
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 4567
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4568
17. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4569
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4570
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4571
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4572
18. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 4573
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 4574
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4575
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4576
19. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4577
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4578
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4579
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4580
229/231
20. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 4581
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 4582
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 4583
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 4584
21. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4585
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 4586
22. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 4588
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 4589
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 4590
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 4591
23. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4592
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4593
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4594
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4595
24. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4596
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4597
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4600
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4601
26. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4602
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4603
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4604
27. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4605
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4607
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4608
28. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4609
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4610
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4611
29. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4612
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4613
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4614
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4615
30. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4616
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4617
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4618
31. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4619
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4620
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4621
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4622
32. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 4623
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 4624
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 4625
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 4626
230/231
33. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 4627
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 4628
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 4629
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 4630
34. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 4631
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 4632
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 4633
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 4634
35. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 4635
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 4636
36. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 4637
(2016) 86-101. 4638
37. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 4639
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 4640
38. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 4641
231/231
View publication stats

The Focus On The Partitions Obtained by Parallel Moves in The Cancer's Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Focus On The Partitions Obtained by Parallel Moves in The Cancer's Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Preprint · January 2023

220 PUBLICATIONS 1,205 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

On Combinatorics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 2

The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of 3

Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on 4

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

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 11

SuperHyperMatching and Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching . Two different types of 12

SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 14

well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 15

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 17

fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 18

officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 26

“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 27

to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 29

and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an extreme 31

SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 32

is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 33

such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 34

SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic 35

SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 36

is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 37

neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 38

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 39

no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 40

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an extreme SuperHyperMatching 41

SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 42

N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined 43

as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 44

and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and 46

the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 47

SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 48

N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic 49

coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic 50

cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality 51

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not 52

to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 53

have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 54

neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; an 55

extreme R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 56

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 57

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 58

SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 59

SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 60

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 61

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic 62

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 63

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 64

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an extreme 65

R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 66

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 67

coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 68

high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 69

SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 70

SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic 71

R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 72

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 73

the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 74

neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 75