SuperHyperMatching by (R-) Definitions and Polynomials To Monitor Cancer's Recognition in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

1
SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials 2
To Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic 3
SuperHyperGraphs 4
Henry Garrett 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 7
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 8
ABSTRACT 9
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 10
SuperHyperMatching and Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching . Two different types of 11
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 12
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 14
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 15
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 17
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 18
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 19
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 20
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 21
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 22
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 23
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 24
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 25
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 26
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 27
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 28
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 29
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a neutrosophic 30
SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 31
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 32
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 33
SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic 34
SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 35
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 36
neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 37
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 38
no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 39
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 40
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 41
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the 42
number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 43
SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge 44
1/239
and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and 45
the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 46
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 47
N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic 48
coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic 49
cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality 50
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not 51
to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 52
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 53
neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; a 54
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 55
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 56
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 57
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 58
SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 59
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 60
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic 61
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 62
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 63
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic 64
R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 65
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 66
the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 67
S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to 68
in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 69
SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic 70
R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 71
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 72
the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 73
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 74
cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic 75
SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 76
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 77
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly 78
corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 79
δ−SuperHyperMatching is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 80
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) 81
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 82
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 83
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 84
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperMatching is a 85
maximal neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality 86
such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 87
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 88
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; and 89
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S 90
is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is a 91
neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a 92
SuperHyperMatching . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 93
SuperHyperMatching more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 94
SuperHyperMatching, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperMatching 95
”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 96
the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels 97
2/239
to assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperMatching . It’s redefined a neutrosophic 98
SuperHyperMatching if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 99
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 100
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of 101
Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its 102
Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 103
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 104
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 105
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 106
based on a SuperHyperMatching . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 107
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 108
have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperMatching, then it’s officially 109
called a “SuperHyperMatching” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperMatching . There 110
are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a 111
“SuperHyperMatching ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 112
there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 113
SuperHyperMatching . For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, 114
there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” and a 115
“neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 116
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 117
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 118
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 119
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperMatching are redefined to a “neutrosophic 120
SuperHyperMatching” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” 121
version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results 122
to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching more understandable. Assume a 123
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the 124
intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 125
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 126
“neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 127
SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic 128
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 129
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” where it’s the 130
strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperMatching amid the 131
maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperMatching .] 132
SuperHyperMatching . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and 133
the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic 134
SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 135
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two 136
exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 137
given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 138
amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 139
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two 140
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only 141
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these 142
SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 143
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 144
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 145
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 146
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 147
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 148
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 149
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 150
3/239
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 151
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 152
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In 153
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 154
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 155
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 156
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 157
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 158
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 159
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 160
said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 161
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 162
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 163
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 164
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 165
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 166
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperMatching or the strongest 167
SuperHyperMatching in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 168
SuperHyperMatching, called SuperHyperMatching, and the strongest 169
SuperHyperMatching, called neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, some general results 170
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have 171
only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 172
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 173
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 174
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with neutrosophic 175
SuperHyperMatching theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 176
theory are proposed. 177
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching, 178
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 179
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 180
1 Background 181
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 182
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 183
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 184
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 185
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 186
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 187
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 188
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 189
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 190
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 191
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 192
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 193
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 194
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 195
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 196
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 197
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 198
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 199
4/239
majority of notions. 200
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 201
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 202
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 203
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 204
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 205
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 206
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 207
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 208
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 209
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 210
based on initial background. 211
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 212
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 213
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 214
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 215
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 216
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 217
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 218
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 219
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 220
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 221
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 222
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 223
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 224
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 225
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 226
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 227
(2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s 228
Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 229
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 230
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 231
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), 232
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 233
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 234
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 235
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [9] by Henry 236
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 237
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 238
Beyond” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 239
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 240
” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 241
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 242
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 243
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 244
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 245
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 246
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 247
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 248
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 249
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 250
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [15] by 251
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 252
5/239
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [16] by 253
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 254
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 255
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 256
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 257
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett 258
(2022), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 259
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 260
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 261
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 262
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 263
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2023), 264
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 265
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 266
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 267
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 268
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [22] by 269
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 270
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 271
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [23] by Henry 272
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 273
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 274
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2023), 275
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 276
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 277
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 278
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 279
in Ref. [26] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 280
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 281
Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 282
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 283
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2022), 284
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 285
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 286
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 287
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 288
in Ref. [30] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 289
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 290
in Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to 291
Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 292
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2022), there 293
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 294
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 295
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 296
Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 297
than 2347 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 298
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 299
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 300
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 301
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 302
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 303
than 3048 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 304
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 305
6/239
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 306
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 307
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 308
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 309
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 310
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 311
2 Motivation and Contributions 312
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 313
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 314
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 315
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 316
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 317
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 318
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 319
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 320
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 321
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 322
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 323
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 324
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 325
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 326
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 327
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 328
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 329
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 330
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 331
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 332
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 333
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 334
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 335
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 336
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 337
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 338
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 339
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 340
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 341
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 342
formally called “ SuperHyperMatching” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 343
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 344
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 345
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 346
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 347
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 348
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 349
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 350
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 351
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 352
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 353
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 354
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 355
7/239
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 356
either the optimal SuperHyperMatching or the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching in 357
those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond 358
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two 359
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 360
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 361
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 362
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 363
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 364
find the “ amount of SuperHyperMatching” of either individual of cells or the groups of 365
cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 366
SuperHyperMatching” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 367
cells? 368
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 369
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 370
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 371
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 372
SuperHyperMatching” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” on “SuperHyperGraph” 373
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations 374
to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion 375
with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to 376
make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some 377
results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, 378
“Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 379
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 380
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 381
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 382
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 383
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 384
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 385
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperMatching and 386
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperMatching” 387
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. In the sense of tackling on getting results 388
and in order to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 389
SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 390
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 391
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 392
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 393
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 394
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 395
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 396
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 397
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 398
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 399
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 400
SuperHyperMatching”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”, “Results on 401
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 402
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 403
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 404
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperMatching”. The 405
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 406
8/239
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 407
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 408
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 409
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 410
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 411
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 412
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 413
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 414
3 Preliminaries 415
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 416
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 417
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [36],Definition 2.1,p.87). 418
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 419
+
]− 0, 1 [. 420
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [39],Definition 6,p.2). 421
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A

single valued neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by truth-membership
function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a falsity-membership
function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be
written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 3.3. The degree of truth-membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [38],Definition 422
3,p.291). 423
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 424
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 425
9/239
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 426
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 427
1, 2, . . . , n); 428
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 429
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 430
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 431
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 432
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 433
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 434
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 435
(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 . 436
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 437
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 438
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 439
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 440
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 441
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 442
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 443
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 444
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 445
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 446
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 447
(Ref. [38],Section 4,pp.291-292). 448
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 449
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 450
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 451
could be characterized as follow-up items. 452
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 453
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 454
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 455
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 456
HyperEdge; 457
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 458
SuperEdge; 459
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 460
SuperHyperEdge. 461
10/239
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 462
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 463
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [37], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 464
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 465
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 466
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 467
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 468
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 469
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 470
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 471
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 472
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 473
0
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 474
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 475
1, 2, . . . , n); 476
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 477
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 478
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 479
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 480
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 481
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 482
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 483
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 484
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 485
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 486
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 487
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 488
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 489
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 490
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 491
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 492
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 493
11/239
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 494
(Ref. [38],Section 4,pp.291-292). 495
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 496
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 497
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 498
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 500
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 501
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 502
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 503
HyperEdge; 504
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 505
SuperEdge; 506
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 507
SuperHyperEdge. 508
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 509
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 510
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 511
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 512
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 513
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to 514
have more understandable. 515
Definition 3.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 516
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 517
(i). It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 518
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 519
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 520
given SuperHyperEdges; 521
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 522
SuperHyperEdges; 523
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 524
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 525
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 526
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 527
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 528
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 529
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 530
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 531
common SuperVertex. 532
12/239
Definition 3.14. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
(NSHG) S. Then a sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from 533
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 534
Vs if either of following conditions hold: 535
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 536
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 537
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 538
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 539
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 540
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 541
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 542
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 543
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 544
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 545
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 546
s). 547
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; 549
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 550
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 551
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called neutrosophic 552
SuperHyperPath . 553
Definition 3.16. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching). 554
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 555
(i) a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 556
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 557
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 558
SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge 559
to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; 560
13/239
(ii) a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 561
SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 564
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 565
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; 566
(iii) a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) 567
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 568
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the 569
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 570
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s 571
no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the 572
power is corresponded to its coefficient; 573
(iv) a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) 574
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 575
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 576
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 577
SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 578
such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic 579
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 580
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 581
neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; 582
(v) a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 583
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 584
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 585
SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge 586
to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; 587
(vi) a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 588
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in 591
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 592
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; 593
(vii) a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial 594
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 595
neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the 596
number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 597
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 598
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in 599
a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; 600
(viii) a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial 601
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 602
neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined 603
as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 604
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in 606
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 607
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 608
neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. 609
14/239
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.20)
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 3.17. ((neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperMatching). 610
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 611
(i) an δ−SuperHyperMatching is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 612
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 613
(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 614
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (3.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (3.2)
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 615
Expression (3.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 616
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperMatching is a maximal neutrosophic of 617
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 618
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 619
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 620
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (3.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (3.4)
The Expression (3.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 621
And the Expression (3.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 622
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 623
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, there’s a need to 624
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 625
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 626
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 627
Definition 3.18. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 628
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 629
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 630
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 631
understandable. 632
Definition 3.19. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 633
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 634
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 635
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic neutrosophic 636
SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic 637
SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic 638
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) 639
holds. 640
15/239
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.19)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.20)
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a SuperHyperMatching. Since there’s 641
more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperMatching more understandable. 642
For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, there’s a need to 643
“redefine” the notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 644
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 645
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 646
Definition 3.20. Assume a SuperHyperMatching. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 647
SuperHyperMatching if the Table (3) holds. 648
4 neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 649
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperMatching, is up. Thus the non-obvious 650
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, S is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 651
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, not: S is the 652
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than three 653
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s 654
interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic 655
type-SuperHyperSet called the 656
“neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” 657
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 658
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, 659
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 660
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle 661
SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets 662
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple 663
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 664
ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured on the Figures. 665
Example 4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 666
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 667
16/239
• On the Figure (1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic 668
SuperHyperMatching, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty neutrosophic 669
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 670
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic 671
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 672
The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is neutrosophic isolated means that 673
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 674
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given neutrosophic 675
SuperHyperMatching. 676
C(N SHG) = {E4 } is an neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching.

C(N SHG) = z is an neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V1 , V2 , V4 } is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching.
C(N SHG) = z 3 is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 677
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple neutrosophic 678
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. The neutrosophic 679
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 680

is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 681
SuperHyperMatching. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 682
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 683

is an neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic 684
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 685
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 686
of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 687
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common 688
and there’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic 689
SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 690
inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 691
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 692
type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is a 693
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic 694
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 695

17/239
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 697
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 698
the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 699
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 700

Is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 701
SuperHyperMatching. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 702

Is an neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic 704
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 705
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic 706
SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 707
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 708
and it’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. Since it’s 709
SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three neutrosophic 714
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 715

Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, 716

Is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 717
SuperHyperMatching, not: 718

18/239
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 719

Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected 720
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 721
the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 722
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called 724
the 725
is only and only 727

• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperMatching, is up. 728
E1 and E3 SuperHyperMatching are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a 729
loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 730
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 731
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 732
an endpoint. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every 733
given neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. 734


19/239




20/239




the 783

21/239
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 787
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 788
namely, E4 . 789




22/239






23/239
the 838

• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperMatching, is up. 841
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 842
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 843
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 844
C(N SHG) = {E4 , E2 } is an neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching.

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


24/239



25/239




the 893

26/239
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 897
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 898
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. 899
C(N SHG)neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperMatching = {E1 }.

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


SuperHyperVertices. There are are only same neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 913
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only same neutrosophic 917

Doesn’t have less than same SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 920
SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 921
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 922
27/239

Is the obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 924

SuperHyperVertices. There are only less than same neutrosophic 937

Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, 939

SuperHyperMatching, is: 941

Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is: 942

28/239
the only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 945
the 948

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is mentioned as 951
the SuperHyperModel ESHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 952
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. 954
C(N SHG)neutrosophicSuperHyperM atching = {Ei }22

i=12 .
C(N SHG)neutrosophicSuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = 5z 11 .
C(N SHG)neutrosophicR−SuperHyperM atching = {Vi }22
i=1 .
C(N SHG)neutrosophicR−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 22 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
29/239

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
30/239

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
the 1003

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
31/239

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

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
32/239

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
the 1055
33/239

i=15 .
i=1 .
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1060

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

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
34/239

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
35/239
the 1108

i=15 .
i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1111
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 1112
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 1115
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. 1116

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
36/239

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
37/239

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
the 1165

i=12 .
i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of 1168
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 1169

i=15 .
i=1 .
38/239

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
39/239

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
the 1220

i=15 .
i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1223
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1224
40/239
C(N SHG)neutrosophicSuperHyperM atching = {E1 , E3 }.

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



41/239





42/239
the 1275

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1278
C(N SHG)neutrosophicSuperHyperM atching = {Ei }6i=2 .

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

i=1 .
43/239

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
44/239

i=1 .

i=1 .
the 1329

i=1 .

45/239




46/239




the 1383
47/239

C(N SHG)neutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperM atching = {E1 }.

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


48/239




49/239


the 1437

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1440
this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic graph 1441
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. 1442
C(N SHG)neutrosophicSuperHyperM atching = {E2i−1 }3i=1 .

50/239




51/239




the 1493

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as 1496
Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 1497
52/239
C(N SHG)neutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperM atching = {E2i−1 }3i=1 .

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

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
53/239

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
54/239
the 1548

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
55/239

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
56/239

i=1 .
the 1602

i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as 1605
Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figure (17). 1606

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

57/239



58/239




the 1657

59/239



60/239




61/239


the 1711


C(N SHG)neutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atching = {Vi }si=1 .
C(N SHG)neutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .
62/239




63/239




the 1764

64/239
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperMatching
in the Example (4.1)

65/239

66/239

67/239

68/239

69/239

70/239

71/239

72/239

73/239

74/239
Proposition 4.2. 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 a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the neutrosophic number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the neutrosophic
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 neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

eligibilities to propose property such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality indicates that these neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
couldn’t give us the neutrosophic lower bound in the term of neutrosophic sharpness. In
other words, the neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but

sometimes the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 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
75/239
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 1768
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 1769
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 1770
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 1771
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 1772
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 1773
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 1774
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 1775
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1776
are coming up. 1777
The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

R-SuperHyperMatching. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is related to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is up. The
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic
SuperHyperMatching is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
76/239
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperMatching is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic

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

SuperHyperMatching, not:
Is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1778
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1779
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1780
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1781
“neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching” 1782
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching, 1784
is only and only
77/239
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated
SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching amid
those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperMatching, are
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

is a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching. In other words, the least cardinality, the

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching is the
cardinality of
1786
Proposition 4.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the neutrosophic number of R-SuperHyperMatching has, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperMatching with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1787
cardinality. 1788
Proof. The neutrosophic structure of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching

decorates the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any neutrosophic
connections so as this neutrosophic style implies different versions of neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower neutrosophic bound is to
have the maximum neutrosophic groups of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have
perfect neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of
this neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the
used neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its neutrosophic properties taken from
the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in
the targeted neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no neutrosophic connection.
Furthermore, the neutrosophic existence of one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no
neutrosophic effect to talk about the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching. Since at
least two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the neutrosophic
background of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge but at least two
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices make the neutrosophic version of neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the neutrosophic setting of non-obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary
to mention that the word “Simple” is used as neutrosophic adjective for the initial
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no neutrosophic appearance of the loop
78/239
neutrosophic version of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The neutrosophic adjective “loop” on the basic
neutrosophic framework engages one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it never
happens in this neutrosophic setting. With these neutrosophic bases, on a neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at
least a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching has the neutrosophic cardinality of a
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching has the
neutrosophic cardinality at least a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Assume a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching since either the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is
an obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no
neutrosophic usage of this neutrosophic framework and even more there’s no
neutrosophic connection inside or the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and
as its consequences, there’s a neutrosophic contradiction with the term “neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperMatching” since the maximum neutrosophic cardinality never happens for
this neutrosophic style of the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no
neutrosophic connection inside as mentioned in first neutrosophic case in the forms of
drawback for this selected neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This neutrosophic case implies having the neutrosophic style of
on-quasi-triangle neutrosophic style on the every neutrosophic elements of this
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching is the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that some
neutrosophic amount of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle
neutrosophic style. The neutrosophic cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
But the lower neutrosophic bound is up. Thus the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality ends up the neutrosophic discussion. The first
neutrosophic term refers to the neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s a neutrosophic
SuperHyperClass of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has no on-quasi-triangle
neutrosophic style amid some amount of its neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. This
neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has only some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no neutrosophic amount of
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The neutrosophic cardinality of this neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that
79/239
Contains some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s
distinct-covers-order-amount neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices taken from the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 1789
used neutrosophic background in the neutrosophic terms of worst neutrosophic case and 1790
the common theme of the lower neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 1791
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 1792
neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 1793
are coming up. 1795


SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
80/239

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

is only and only
81/239
To sum them up, assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then the neutrosophic number of R-SuperHyperMatching has, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperMatching with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1804
cardinality. 1805
Proposition 4.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

If a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperMatching is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic 1806
R-SuperHyperMatching is at least the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic 1807
SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 1808
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 1809
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum neutrosophic number of 1810
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching in 1811
some cases but the maximum number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 1812
maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 1813
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a neutrosophic 1814
R-SuperHyperMatching. 1815
Proof. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
82/239
if and only if Zi and Zj are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperMatching is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching
but with slightly differences in the maximum neutrosophic cardinality amid those
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|neutrosophic cardinality ,

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

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong
to the neutrosophic 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, 1816
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
1817
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 1820
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 1821
83/239
are coming up. 1829


SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
84/239

is only and only

85/239

cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperMatching is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Proposition 4.5. Assume a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1848
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 1849
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1850
inside of any given neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching minus all neutrosophic 1851
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 1852
unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1853
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, 1854
minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1855
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 1856
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 1857
addresses some issues about the neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 1858
delivers some remarks on the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1859
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1860
for distinct amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that 1861
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but this 1862
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either has the 1863
maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 1864
neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 1865
least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all neutrosophic 1866
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching where 1867
the neutrosophic completion of the neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 1868
literarily, a neutrosophic embedded R-SuperHyperMatching. The SuperHyperNotions of 1869
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 1870
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1871
86/239
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1872
SuperHyperSets have the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1873
neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of neutrosophic 1874
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum neutrosophic style of the embedded 1875
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching. The interior types of the neutrosophic 1876
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the neutrosophic number of 1877
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior neutrosophic 1878
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1879
perfect unique connections inside the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct types 1880
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching. 1881
Thus neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one neutrosophic 1882
SuperHyperEdge and in neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the interior 1883
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the 1884
embedded neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, there’s the usage of exterior neutrosophic 1885
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 1886
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One neutrosophic 1887
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1888
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in 1889
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the neutrosophic 1890
R-SuperHyperMatching. The neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching with the exclusion 1891
of the exclusion of all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one neutrosophic 1892
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching with 1893
the inclusion of all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one neutrosophic 1894
SuperHyperEdge, is a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching. To sum them up, in 1895
a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 1896
one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1897
possibilities of the distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1898
neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor 1899
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique 1900
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct neutrosophic 1901
SuperHyperVertices in an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, minus all 1902
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1903
are coming up. 1905


SuperHyperVertices,

87/239
SuperHyperVertices,

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

88/239
is only and only



cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1914
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 1915
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1916
inside of any given neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching minus all neutrosophic 1917
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 1918
an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1919
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, 1920
minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1921
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1922
The all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic 1923
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1924
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1925
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all minus 1926
all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1927
89/239
Proof. The main definition of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching has two titles. a 1928
neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1929
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1930
any neutrosophic number, there’s a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching with 1931
that quasi-maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 1932
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded neutrosophic 1933
SuperHyperGraph, then the neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1934
collection of all the neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatchings for all neutrosophic 1935
numbers less than its neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1936
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of 1937
the neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, again and more in the operations of 1938
collecting all the neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatchings acted on the all possible 1939
used formations of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one neutrosophic 1940
number. This neutrosophic number is considered as the equivalence class for all 1941
corresponded quasi-R-SuperHyperMatchings. Let 1942
zneutrosophic Number , Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet and Gneutrosophic SuperHyperMatching be a 1943
neutrosophic number, a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a neutrosophic 1944
SuperHyperMatching. Then 1945
[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class = {Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet = Gneutrosophic SuperHyperMatching ,
|Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality
= zneutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is 1946
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1947
Gneutrosophic SuperHyperMatching ∈ ∪zneutrosophic Number [zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class =

∪zneutrosophic Number {Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1948
technical definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. 1949
Gneutrosophic SuperHyperMatching =
{S ∈ ∪zneutrosophic Number [zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class =
= zneutrosophic Number |
= max zneutrosophic Number }.
[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the neutrosophic 1950
SuperHyperMatching poses the upcoming expressions. 1951
{S ∈ ∪zneutrosophic Number [zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class |
90/239
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1952
= max zneutrosophic Number
[zneutrosophic
Number ]neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1953

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1954


1955

1956

1957

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1958
“neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1959
91/239
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its neutrosophic 1960
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1961
another name for “neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperMatching” but, precisely, it’s the 1962
generalization of “neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperMatching” since “neutrosophic 1963
Quasi-SuperHyperMatching” happens “neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” in a 1964
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “neutrosophic 1965
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” in a 1966
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since 1967
there are some ambiguities about the neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. 1968
To get orderly keywords, the terms, “neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, 1969
“neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperMatching”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” 1970
are up. 1971
Thus, let zneutrosophic Number , Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1972
Gneutrosophic SuperHyperMatching be a neutrosophic number, a neutrosophic 1973
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching and the new terms 1974
are up. 1975

∪zneutrosophic Number {Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |neutrosophic Cardinality
1976
{Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zneutrosophic Number [zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class
|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality
1977
1978
|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality = max zneutrosophic
And with go back to initial structure, 1979


92/239
1980

1981

1982

Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1983
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic 1984
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all 1987
minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1988
are coming up. 1990


SuperHyperVertices,

93/239
SuperHyperVertices,

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

94/239
is only and only



cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1999
Any neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching only contains all interior neutrosophic 2006
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 2007
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic 2008
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with 2009
no exception minus all neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of 2010
them but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 2011
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2012
95/239
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 2013
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some neutrosophic 2014
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all neutrosophic numbers of those neutrosophic 2015
SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 2016
than r distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given neutrosophic 2017
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 2018
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 2019
neutrosophic bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic 2020
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2021
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 2022
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 2023
to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a neutrosophic 2024
R-SuperHyperMatching. Since it doesn’t have 2025
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 2026
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 2027
have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2028
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum neutrosophic 2029
cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 2030
it isn’t a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching. Since it doesn’t do the neutrosophic 2031
procedure such that such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 2032
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one neutrosophic 2033
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic 2034
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 2035
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 2036
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the neutrosophic procedure”.]. 2037
There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended neutrosophic 2038
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 2039
Thus the obvious neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching, VESHE is up. The obvious 2040
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching, 2041
VESHE , is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all neutrosophic 2042
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of neutrosophic pairs are titled 2043
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2044
ESHG : (V, E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 2045
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 2046
maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a neutrosophic 2047
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 2048
SuperHyperEdge to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 2049
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any neutrosophic 2050
R-SuperHyperMatching only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 2051
all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 2052
SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic 2053
are coming up. 2059

96/239

SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
97/239

is only and only



cardinality of
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2068
ESHG : (V, E). Any neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching only contains all interior 2069
98/239
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2070
from the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all 2071
possible neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic 2072
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all neutrosophic 2073
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 2074
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 2075
out. 2076
Remark 4.8. The words “ neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” and “neutrosophic 2077
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum neutrosophic type-style. In other 2078
words, they refer to the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperNumber and the 2079
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. 2080
Consider a neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then a neutrosophic 2082
SuperHyperMatching has the members poses only one neutrosophic representative in a 2083
neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2084
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider a 2085
neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (4.7), the 2086
neutrosophic results are up. Thus on a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2087
ESHG : (V, E). Consider a neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then a neutrosophic 2088
SuperHyperMatching has the members poses only one neutrosophic representative in a 2089
neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2090
5 Results on neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 2091
The previous neutrosophic approaches apply on the upcoming neutrosophic results on 2092
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 2093
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 2094
Then a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching-style with the maximum neutrosophic 2095
SuperHyperCardinality is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic 2096
SuperHyperVertices. 2097
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 2098
Then a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 2099
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions in 2100
the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 2101
SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 2102
the neutrosophic unique SuperHyperEdges. a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching 2103
has the neutrosophic number of all the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Also, 2104
C(N SHG)neutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperM atching

|EESHG:(V,E) |neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)neutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.

99/239
SuperHyperSet





bound of
100/239
The neutrosophic structure of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching decorates

the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any neutrosophic connections
so as this neutrosophic style implies different versions of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower neutrosophic bound is to have the
maximum neutrosophic groups of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have perfect
neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the used
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its neutrosophic properties taken from the
fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the
targeted neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no neutrosophic connection.
101/239



Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z neutrosophic

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
102/239
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2119

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
103/239
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 2130
The main definition of the neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching has two titles. a 2178
104/239


105/239
[zneutrosophic

And then, 2203



2205

2206

2207

106/239
are up. 2221
are up. 2225

2226
2227
2228


107/239
2230

2231

2232

are coming up. 2240


SuperHyperVertices,

108/239
SuperHyperVertices,

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

109/239
is only and only



cardinality of
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 2255
110/239
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperMatching, is up. There’s neither empty 2300
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2301
of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple neutrosophic 2302

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
111/239

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no neutrosophic 2311
SuperHyperVertex of a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 2312
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are not 2313
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 2314
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is up. The 2315
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic 2316
SuperHyperMatching is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic 2317

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 2321

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
112/239

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 2328
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 2329
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 2330
the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching and it’s an neutrosophic 2331
SuperHyperMatching. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 2332
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] 2333
such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 2334
is common and there’s an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all neutrosophic 2335
SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2336
inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2337

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
.
113/239

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 2342
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 2343
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 2344

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.3. In the Figure (21), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2350
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 2351
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperMatching. 2352
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 2353
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions on 2355
the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic 2356
SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. a 2357
neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching has the neutrosophic half number of all the 2358
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality. 2359
Also, 2360

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
114/239
Figure 21. a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic
SuperHyperMatching in the Example (5.3)

SuperHyperSet



115/239

bound of

116/239

117/239

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

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
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
118/239
2375

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
119/239


120/239

And then, 2459



121/239
2461

2462

2463

are up. 2477
are up. 2481

122/239
2482
2483
2484


2486

2487

2488

123/239
are coming up. 2496


SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
124/239
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

is only and only

125/239

cardinality of
126/239

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
127/239

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
.
128/239

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
.
129/239
Figure 22. a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching in the neutrosophic Example (5.5)

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.5. In the Figure (22), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2606
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2607
in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. 2608
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 2609
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to a neutrosophic 2611
SuperHyperEdge. a neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching has the neutrosophic 2612
number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Also, 2613

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

C(N SHG)neutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = z s + z t +, . . . .
130/239
SuperHyperSet





bound of
131/239

132/239




V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
133/239
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2628

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
134/239
135/239


136/239
[zneutrosophic

And then, 2712



2714

2715

2716

137/239
are up. 2730
are up. 2734

2735
2736
2737


138/239
2739

2740

2741

are coming up. 2749


SuperHyperVertices,

139/239
SuperHyperVertices,

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

140/239
is only and only



cardinality of
141/239

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

142/239

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

143/239

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

144/239

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

Example 5.7. In the Figure (23), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 2859
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2860
by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic 2861
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 2862
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. 2863
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2864
ESHB : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching is a neutrosophic 2865
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with no neutrosophic 2866
exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled neutrosophic 2867
SuperHyperNeighbors. a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching has the neutrosophic 2868
maximum number of on neutrosophic cardinality of the minimum SuperHyperPart minus 2869
those have common neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors and not unique neutrosophic 2870
SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 2871

min |PESHG:(V,E) |neutrosophic Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |neutrosophic Cardinality .
145/239
Figure 23. a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching in the neutrosophic Example (5.7)

SuperHyperSet



146/239


bound of

147/239

148/239

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

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
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
149/239
E
2886

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
150/239

151/239

[zneutrosophic

And then, 2970



152/239
2972

2973

2974

are up. 2988
are up. 2992

153/239
2993
2994
2995


2997

2998

2999

154/239
are coming up. 3007


SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
155/239
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

is only and only

156/239

cardinality of
157/239

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
158/239

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
159/239

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.9. In the neutrosophic Figure (24), the connected neutrosophic 3117
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic 3118
featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 3119
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 3120
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 3121
SuperHyperModel (24), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. 3122
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 3123
ESHM : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching is a neutrosophic 3124
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no 3125
neutrosophic exception in the neutrosophic form of interior neutrosophic 3126
SuperHyperVertices from a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the 3127
160/239
Figure 24. a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-
sophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching in the Example (5.9)
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled 3128
“SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than some of them aren’t 3129
SuperHyperNeighbors to all. a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching has the neutrosophic 3130
maximum number on all the neutrosophic summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of 3131
the all neutrosophic SuperHyperParts form some SuperHyperEdges minus those make 3132
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all or not unique. Also, 3133

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

SuperHyperSet

161/239




bound of

162/239
163/239


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

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

z
164/239
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3148

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
165/239
166/239


[zneutrosophic

And then, 3232

167/239


3234

3235

3236

are up. 3250
168/239
are up. 3254

3255
3256
3257


3259

3260

169/239
3261

are coming up. 3269


SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
170/239

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

is only and only

171/239


cardinality of
172/239

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
173/239

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
174/239

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
175/239
Figure 25. a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching in the Example (5.11)

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.11. In the Figure (25), the connected neutrosophic 3379
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and neutrosophic featured. The 3380
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, 3381
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic 3382
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is 3383
the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. 3384
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 3385
ESHW : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching is a neutrosophic 3386
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the 3387
neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in the form of interior 3388
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 3389
exclusion on neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them and not all. a 3390
neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching has the neutrosophic maximum number on all the 3391
neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges don’t have common 3392
176/239
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3393

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

SuperHyperSet





177/239
bound of

178/239


179/239
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
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
3408

180/239
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
181/239


182/239

And then, 3492



183/239
3494

3495

3496

are up. 3510
are up. 3514

184/239
3515
3516
3517


3519

3520

3521

185/239
are coming up. 3529


SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
186/239
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

is only and only

187/239

cardinality of
188/239

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
189/239

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
.
190/239

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
.
191/239
Figure 26. a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel neutrosophic Associated to the neu-
trosophic Notions of neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching in the neutrosophic Example
(5.13)

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.13. In the neutrosophic Figure (??), the connected neutrosophic 3639
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 3640
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 3641
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 3642
ESHW : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (??), is the neutrosophic 3643
6 General neutrosophic Results 3645
For the SuperHyperMatching, neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, and the neutrosophic 3646
SuperHyperMatching, some general results are introduced. 3647
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is “redefined” on 3648
the positions of the alphabets. 3649
Corollary 6.2. Assume neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. Then 3650
N eutrosophic SuperHyperM atching =

{theSuperHyperM atchingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperM atching. }
192/239
plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 3651
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 3652
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 3653
Corollary 6.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 3654
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching and 3655
SuperHyperMatching coincide. 3656
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 3658
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching if and only if it’s a SuperHyperMatching. 3659
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 3661
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 3662
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 3663
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is its 3664
SuperHyperMatching and reversely. 3665
Corollary 6.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 3666
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 3667
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is 3668
its SuperHyperMatching and reversely. 3669
Corollary 6.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 3670
SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperMatching isn’t 3671
well-defined. 3672
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3673
its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined if and only if its 3674
SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined. 3675
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined if and only if its 3678
SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined. 3679
Corollary 6.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 3680
SuperHyperMatching is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperMatching is 3681
well-defined. 3682
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3683
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is well-defined if and only if its 3684
SuperHyperMatching is well-defined. 3685
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching is well-defined if and only if its 3688
SuperHyperMatching is well-defined. 3689
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 3690
is 3691
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3692
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3693
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3694
193/239
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3695
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3696
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3697
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3698
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3699
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3700
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3701
statements are equivalent. 3702
∀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 3703
∀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 3705
following statements are equivalent. 3706
∀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 3707
∀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 3709
194/239
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperMatching since the following statements are 3711
equivalent. 3712
∀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.
3713
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3714
∅ is 3715
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3716
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3717
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3718
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3719
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3720
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3721
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3722
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3723
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3724
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3725
∀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 3727
∀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.
195/239
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3729
∀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 3731
∀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 3733
∀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 3735
∀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.
3737
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 3738
independent SuperHyperSet is 3739
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3740
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3741
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3742
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3743
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3744
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3745
196/239
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 3746
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3747
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive 3749
SuperHyperMatching since the following statements are equivalent. 3750
∀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 3751
∀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 3753
∀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 3755
∀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 3757
∀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.
197/239
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 3759
∀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.
3761
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3762
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 3763
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3764
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3765
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3766
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3767
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3768
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3769
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3770
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3771
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3772
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3773
SuperHyperMatching. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 3774
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 3775
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3776
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3777
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 3778
∀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 3779
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3780
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3781
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. This 3782
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3783
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3784
198/239
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3785
∀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. 3788
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3789
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3790
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3791
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3792
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3793
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 3794
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3795
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3796
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3797
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3798
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3799
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3800
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3801
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3802
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3803
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 3806
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3807
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3808
199/239
∀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 3810
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 3811
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3813
SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3814
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 3817
(i) : the SuperHyperMatching; 3818
(ii) : the SuperHyperMatching; 3819
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperMatching; 3820
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching; 3821
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching; 3822
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching. 3823
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3824
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3825
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3826
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3827
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 3830
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3831
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3832
200/239
∀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. 3835
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3836
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. This 3837
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3838
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3839
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3840
∀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. 3843
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3845
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3846
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 3849
(i) : the dual SuperHyperMatching; 3850
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperMatching; 3851
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperMatching; 3852
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching; 3853
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching; 3854
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatching. 3855
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3856
201/239
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3858
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3859
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 3862
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3863
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3864
∀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 3866
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperUniform 3867
SuperHyperWheel. 3868
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3870
SuperHyperMatching. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3871
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 3874
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3875
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 3876
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 3877
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3881
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3882
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3883
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 3884
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 3885
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3886
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
202/239
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3887
∀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 3888
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperStar. 3889
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3890
SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3891
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 3892
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3893
SuperHyperMatching and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or 3895
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 3896
in S. 3897
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 3899
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3900

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3902
O(ESHG)
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3903
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3907
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3908
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3909
is a 3910
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3914
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3915
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3916
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3917
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3918
203/239
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has 3919
either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 3920
∀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 3921
given SuperHyperStar. 3922
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3923
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3924
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3925
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3926
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3928
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3929
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3930
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3931
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3932
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar 3934
nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3935
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s an 3937
δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3938
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 3942
number of 3943
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3947
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3948
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3949
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 3950
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 3951
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3952
204/239
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 3955
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3956
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3957
∀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. 3961
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. 3963
SuperHyperMatching and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or 3965
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 3966
in S. 3967
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 3969
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3970

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3972
O(ESHG)
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3973
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 3975
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 3976
(iv) : SuperHyperMatching; 3980
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 3981
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3982
205/239
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3983
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some 3984
SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 3985
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperMatching and number of connected component is |V − S|. 3987
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s a dual 3989
1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 3990
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 3992
number is at most O(ESHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 3993
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3994
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3995
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3996
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 3997
∀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 3999
are equivalent. 4000
∀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 4001
∀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.
206/239
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following statements 4003
are equivalent. 4004
∀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 4005
∀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 4007
∀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 4009
SuperHyperSet in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and 4010
the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 4011
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 4012
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 4013
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 4014
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4018
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4020
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4021
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 4022
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4023
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
207/239
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 4025
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 4026
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4027
t>
2
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4029
∀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 4032
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 4035
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4036
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4037
∀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 4040
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 4043
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4045
∀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 4048
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 4051
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4053
∀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 4056
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching in a given 4057
208/239
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 4058
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 4059
t>
2
dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4061
∀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 4064
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching in a given 4065
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 4066
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 4067
t>
2
dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 4069
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in 4070
the setting of dual 4071
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4075
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4076
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4077
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 4078
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 4079
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 4081
∀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 4083
in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4084
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the 4085
209/239
∀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. 4088
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the 4089
∀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. 4092
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the following 4093
∀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. 4096
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the 4097
∀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. 4100
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching since the 4101
210/239
∀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 4104
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 4107
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) 4109
and the neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 4110
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4114
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4115
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4116
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 4117
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 4118
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4119
SuperHyperMatching. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, 4120
suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 4121
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4122
∀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 4123
SuperHyperMatching in a given SuperHyperCycle. 4124
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4125
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 4127
211/239
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4128
∀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. 4130
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4131
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 4133
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4134
∀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. 4136
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4138
Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4139
Thus the number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 4141
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4142
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 4145
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 4147
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 4155
212/239
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4156
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 4157
∀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 4160
∀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. 4163
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 4164
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching and they are chosen from different 4165
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 4166
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4167
∀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 4169
SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 4170

O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4172
SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 4173
Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 4176
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 4177
t>
2
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 4179
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 4180
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 4181
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 4182
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 4183
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 4184
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are 4185
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 4186
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 4187
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such 4188
that 4189
213/239
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 4190
(ii) vx ∈ E. 4191
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 4192
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, 4193
∀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 4194
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, 4195
∀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.
4196
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 4197
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then 4198
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 4199
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 4200
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, either 4202
∀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 4203
∀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. 4204
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4205
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, either 4206
∀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)
214/239
or 4207
∀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. 4208
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 4209
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 4210
number. 4211
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 4212
Then 4213
(i) Γ ≤ O; 4214
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 4215
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4216
S = V. 4217
∀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 4218
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 4219
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 4220
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 4221
S, Γ ≤ O. 4222
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 4223
∀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 4224
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 4225
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4226
S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 4227
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 4228
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 4229
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4230
which is connected. Then 4231
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 4232
215/239
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4233
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4234
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4235
∀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 4236
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4237
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 4238
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 4239
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 4240
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4241
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4242
∀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 4243
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4244
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4245
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 4246
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 4247
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4248
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 4249
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4250
SuperHyperMatching; 4251
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4252
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4253
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4254
a dual SuperHyperMatching. 4255
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 4256
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4257
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 })|
216/239
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4258
If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4259
∃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 4260
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4261
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 4263
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4264
SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 4265
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 4266
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4267
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4268
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 4274
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4275
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 4276
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 4277
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4278
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4279
dual SuperHyperMatching. 4280
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 4281
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4282
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 })|
217/239
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. If 4283
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 4284
∃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 4285
SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4286
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4289
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even 4291
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4292
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 4299
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4300
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 4302
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4303
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 4304
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4305
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 4307
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4308
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 })|
218/239
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. If 4309
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 4310
∃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 4311
SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4312
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4315
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even 4317
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4318
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 4325
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4326
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4328
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4329
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4330
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 4332
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4333
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 })|
219/239
∃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 4340
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 4342
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4343
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 4350
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperMatching; 4351
(ii) Γ = 1; 4352
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 4353
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperMatching. 4354
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4355
∀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})|
220/239
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. If 4356
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4357
∃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 4358
induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4359
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Thus it’s 4361
enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4362
Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4363
∀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. 4364
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 4365
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 4366
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4367
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 4368
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 4369
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 4370
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4371
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 4372

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 4373
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 4374
∀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 4375
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. If 4376

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 4377
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 4378
∀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 )|
221/239
or 4379
∀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 4380
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4381
6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a 4382
dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4383
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 4384
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 4385
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4386
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 4388
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 4389
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4390
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 4392

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 4393
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 4394
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4395
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 4396
bn c+1
SuperHyperMatching. It induces S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4397
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 4400
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4401
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 4403
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 4404
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4405
222/239
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 4407
Thus 4408
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 4409
n
b c bn
2c
S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4410
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 4412
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 4415
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 4416
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4417
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF; 4418
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 4419
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 4420
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 4421
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). 4422
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4423
∀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 4424
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4425
∃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 4426
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 4427
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). 4428
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4430
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a 4431
223/239
dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose 4432
ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4433
∀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 4434
N SHF : (V, E). 4435
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 4436
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4437
SuperHyperSet. Then 4438
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4439
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF; 4440
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 4441
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4442
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperMatching 4443
for N SHF : (V, E). 4444
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4445
Thus 4446
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 4447
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 4448
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 4450
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 4453
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4454
SuperHyperSet. Then 4455
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4456
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E); 4457
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 4458
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4459
S={vi }i=1
224/239
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperMatching for 4460
N SHF : (V, E). 4461
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4462
Thus 4463
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 4464
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4465
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 4467
Then following statements hold; 4471
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4472
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 4473
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4475
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then S is a dual 4476
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4477
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 4479
∀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. 4481
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4482
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4483
∀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. 4485
225/239
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4488
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 4489
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4491
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, then S is a dual 4492
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperMatching. 4493
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 4495
∀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 4497
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching and S is a dual 4498
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 4499
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 4501
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4502
∀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 4504
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching and S is a dual 4505
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 4506
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 4508
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 4509
statements hold; 4510
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4513
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4515
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4517
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4518
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4519
SuperHyperGraph. Then 4520
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.
226/239
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4521
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4522
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. 4524
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4525
∀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. 4527
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 4528
∀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. 4530
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 4531
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 4532
statements hold; 4533
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4536
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4538
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4540
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4541
∀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
227/239
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Then 4545
∀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. 4547
∀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 4549
∀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.
4550
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4552
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4553
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4556
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 4558
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4561
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Then 4563
∀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
228/239
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Then 4565
∀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. 4567
∀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 4569
∀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.
4570
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4572
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4573
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4576
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 4578
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching; 4579
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4581
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 4583
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. 4590
∀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. 4593
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 4595
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4597
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4599
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4601
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. Then 4606
∀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 4608
∀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.
230/239
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatching. 4610
∀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 4612
∀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.
4613
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 4615
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4617
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4619
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4621
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 4626
∀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.
231/239
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
7 neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 4637
neutrosophic Recognition 4638
The cancer is the neutrosophic disease but the neutrosophic model is going to figure out 4639
what’s going on this neutrosophic phenomenon. The special neutrosophic case of this 4640
neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 4641
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 4642
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The neutrosophic recognition of the 4643
cancer could help to find some neutrosophic treatments for this neutrosophic disease. 4644
In the following, some neutrosophic steps are neutrosophic devised on this disease. 4645
Step 1. (neutrosophic Definition) The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 4646
the long-term neutrosophic function. 4647
Step 2. (neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 4648
neutrosophic model [it’s called neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 4649
neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 4650
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 4651
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 4652
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 4653
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 4654
happened and what’s done. 4655
Step 3. (neutrosophic Model) There are some specific neutrosophic models, which 4656
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general neutrosophic models. 4657
The moves and the neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 4658
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic 4659
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 4660
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 4661
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching or the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching in 4662
those neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 4663
8 Case 1: The Initial neutrosophic Steps Toward 4664
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 4665
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 4666
Step 4. (neutrosophic Solution) In the neutrosophic Figure (27), the neutrosophic 4667
SuperHyperBipartite is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 4668
By using the neutrosophic Figure (27) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic 4669
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 4670
232/239
Figure 27. a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperMatching
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 4671
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 4672
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 4673
9 Case 2: The Increasing neutrosophic Steps 4675
Toward neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 4676
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 4677
Step 4. (neutrosophic Solution) In the neutrosophic Figure (28), the neutrosophic 4678
SuperHyperMultipartite is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 4679
By using the neutrosophic Figure (28) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic 4680
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 4681
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 4682
previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 4683
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 4684
233/239
Figure 28. a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
234/239
10 Open Problems 4686
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 4687
The SuperHyperMatching and the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching are defined on 4688
a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 4689
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 4690
recognitions? 4691
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperMatching 4692
and the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching? 4693
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 4694
compute them? 4695
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 4696
SuperHyperMatching and the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching? 4697
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperMatching and the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 4698
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on 4699
SuperHyperMatching, are there else? 4700
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 4701
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 4702
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 4703
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 4704
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 4705
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 4706
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 4707
highlighted. 4708
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 4709
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 4710
SuperHyperMatching. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 4711
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 4712
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 4713
neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, finds the convenient background to implement some 4714
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 4715
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 4716
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 4717
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 4718
SuperHyperMatching, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 4719
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 4720
SuperHyperMatching and the neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching. The clarifications, 4721
instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the 4722
literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 4723
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 4724
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 4725
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 4726
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 4727
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 4728
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 4729
called “ SuperHyperMatching” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 4730
235/239
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 4731
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and advantages of this 4732
research are pointed out. 4733
References 4734
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4735
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 4736
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 4737
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 4738
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 4739
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 4740
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 4741
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 4742
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 4743
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 4744
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 4745
(2022) 242-263. 4746
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 4747
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 4748
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4749
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4750
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 4751
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 4752
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 4753
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 4754
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 4755
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 4756
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 4757
6. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 4758
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 4759
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 4760
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 4761
7. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 4762
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4763
236/239
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 4764
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 4765
8. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4766
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4767
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4768
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 4769
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4770
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4771
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4772
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4773
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4775
11. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4776
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4777
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4778
12. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4779
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4780
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 4781
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4782
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4784
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4785
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4786
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 4787
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4788
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4789
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 4790
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 4791
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 4792
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4793
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4794
16. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4795
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 4796
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4797
17. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4798
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4799
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4800
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4801
18. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 4802
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 4803
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4804
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4805
19. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 4806
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 4807
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 4808
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 4809
237/239
20. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4810
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4811
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4812
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4813
21. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 4814
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 4815
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 4816
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 4817
22. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4818
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 4819
23. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 4821
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 4822
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 4823
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 4824
24. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4825
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4826
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4827
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4828
25. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4829
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4830
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4833
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4834
27. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4835
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4836
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4837
28. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4838
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4840
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4841
29. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4842
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4843
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4844
30. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4845
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4846
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4847
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4848
31. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4849
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4850
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4851
32. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4852
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4853
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4854
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4855
238/239
33. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 4856
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 4857
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 4858
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 4859
34. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 4860
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 4861
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 4862
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 4863
35. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 4864
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 4865
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 4866
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 4867
36. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 4868
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 4869
37. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 4870
(2016) 86-101. 4871
38. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 4872
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 4873
39. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 4874
239/239

SuperHyperMatching by (R-) Definitions and Polynomials To Monitor Cancer's Recognition in 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

SuperHyperMatching by (R-) Definitions and Polynomials To Monitor Cancer's Recognition in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials 2

To Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic 3

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

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

SuperHyperMatching and Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching . Two different types of 11

SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13

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

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 16

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

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

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

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

and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a neutrosophic 30

SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 31

is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 32

such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 33

SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic 34

SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 35

is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 36

neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 37

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s 38

no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 39

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 40

SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 41

is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the 42

number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 43

SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge 44

the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 46

SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 47

N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic 48

coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic 49

cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality 50

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not 51

to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 52

have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 53

neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; a 54

neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 55

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 56

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 57

SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 58

SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 59

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 60

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic 61

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 62

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 63

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic 64

R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 65

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 66

the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 67

S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to 68

in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 69

SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic 70

R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 71

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 72

the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 73

neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 74

cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic 75

SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 76

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 77

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly 78

corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 79

δ−SuperHyperMatching is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 80