The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer's Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 January 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202301.0265.
v1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.
The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 2
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s 3
Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 4
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 5
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph 6
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 7
Henry Garrett 9
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 10
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 11
ABSTRACT 12
In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an extreme SuperHyperMatching 13
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 14
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s 15
no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to 16
have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 17
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 18
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 19
cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic 20
SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 21
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 22
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an extreme SuperHyperMatching 23
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 24
N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined 25
as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 26
SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge 27
and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and 28
the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 29
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 30
N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic 31
coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic 32
cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality 33
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not 34
to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 35
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 36
neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; an 37
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 38
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 39
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 40
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 41
SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 42
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 43
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic 44
1/188
© 2023 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 January 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 45
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 46
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an extreme 47
R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 48
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 49
coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 50
high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 51
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 52
SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic 53
R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 54
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 55
the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 56
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 57
cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic 58
SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 59
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 60
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly 61
corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 62
δ−SuperHyperMatching is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 63
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) 64
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 65
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 66
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 67
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperMatching is a 68
maximal neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality 69
such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 70
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 71
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; and 72
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S 73
is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is a 74
neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a 75
SuperHyperMatching . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 76
SuperHyperMatching more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 77
SuperHyperMatching, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 78
“SuperHyperMatching ”. A basic familiarity with Extreme SuperHyperMatching theory, 79
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 80
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching, Cancer’s 81
Recognition 82
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 83
1 Background 84
Fuzzy set in Ref. [57] by Zadeh (1965), intuitionistic fuzzy sets in Ref. [44] by 85
Atanassov (1986), a first step to a theory of the intuitionistic fuzzy graphs in Ref. [54] 86
by Shannon and Atanassov (1994), a unifying field in logics neutrosophy: neutrosophic 87
probability, set and logic, rehoboth in Ref. [55] by Smarandache (1998), single-valued 88
neutrosophic sets in Ref. [56] by Wang et al. (2010), single-valued neutrosophic graphs 89
in Ref. [48] by Broumi et al. (2016), operations on single-valued neutrosophic graphs in 90
Ref. [40] by Akram and Shahzadi (2017), neutrosophic soft graphs in Ref. [53] by Shah 91
and Hussain (2016), bounds on the average and minimum attendance in 92
preference-based activity scheduling in Ref. [42] by Aronshtam and Ilani (2022), 93
2/188
investigating the recoverable robust single machine scheduling problem under interval 94
uncertainty in Ref. [47] by Bold and Goerigk (2022), polyhedra associated with 95
locating-dominating, open locating-dominating and locating total-dominating sets in 96
graphs in Ref. [41] by G. Argiroffo et al. (2022), a Vizing-type result for semi-total 97
domination in Ref. [43] by J. Asplund et al. (2020), total domination cover rubbling in 98
Ref. [45] by R.A. Beeler et al. (2020), on the global total k-domination number of 99
graphs in Ref. [46] by S. Bermudo et al. (2019), maker–breaker total domination game 100
in Ref. [49] by V. Gledel et al. (2020), a new upper bound on the total domination 101
number in graphs with minimum degree six in Ref. [50] by M.A. Henning, and A. Yeo 102
(2021), effect of predomination and vertex removal on the game total domination 103
number of a graph in Ref. [51] by V. Irsic (2019), hardness results of global total 104
k-domination problem in graphs in Ref. [52] by B.S. Panda, and P. Goyal (2021), are 105
studied. 106
Look at [35–39] for further researches on this topic. See the seminal researches [1–3]. 107
The formalization of the notions on the framework of Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 108
theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) 109
SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–32]. Two popular research books in Scribd in the terms 110
of high readers, 2638 and 3363 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [33, 34]. 111
2 Motivation and Contributions 112
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. 113
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 114
find the “ amount of SuperHyperMatching” of either individual of cells or the groups of 115
cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 116
SuperHyperMatching” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 117
cells? 118
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 119
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 120
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 121
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 122
SuperHyperMatching” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” on “SuperHyperGraph” 123
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. 124
3 Preliminaries 125
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 126
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 127
Definition 3.1. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching). 128
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 129
(i) an extreme SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 130
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 131
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no 132
SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge 133
to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; 134
(ii) a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 135
3/188
SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 138
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 139
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; 140
(iii) an extreme SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for 141
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 142
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the 143
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges 144
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s 145
no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the 146
power is corresponded to its coefficient; 147
(iv) a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) 148
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 149
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 150
neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 151
SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 152
such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic 153
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 154
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 155
neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; 156
(v) an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 157
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 158
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 159
SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge 160
to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; 161
(vi) a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 162
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in 165
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 166
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; 167
(vii) an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) 168
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme 169
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the 170
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 171
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 172
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in 173
a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; 174
(viii) a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial 175
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 176
neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined 177
as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 178
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in 180
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 181
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 182
neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. 183
Definition 3.2. ((neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperMatching). 184
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 185
4/188
(i) an δ−SuperHyperMatching is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 186
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 187
(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 188
|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 189
Expression (3.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 190
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperMatching is a maximal neutrosophic of 191
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 192
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 193
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 194
|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. 195
And the Expression (3.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 196
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 197
4 Extreme SuperHyperMatching 198
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperMatching, is up. Thus the non-obvious 199
extreme SuperHyperMatching, S is up. The obvious simple extreme 200
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching, not: S is the extreme 201
SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a 202
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 203
the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 204
“neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching” 205
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 206
extreme SuperHyperMatching, 207
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 208
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. 209
But all only non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme 210
SuperHyperMatching amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme 211
type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 212
ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured on the Figures. 213
Example 4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 214
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 215
• On the Figure (1), the extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme 216
SuperHyperMatching, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty extreme 217
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an 218
extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, 219
there’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The extreme 220
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is extreme isolated means that there’s no extreme 221
5/188
SuperHyperEdge has it as an extreme endpoint. Thus the extreme 222
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given extreme SuperHyperMatching. 223
C(N SHG) = {E4 } is an extreme SuperHyperMatching.

C(N SHG) = z is an extreme SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V1 , V2 , V4 } is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching.
C(N SHG) = z 3 is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 224
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 225
of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 226
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 227

is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 228
The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 229

is an extreme SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an extreme 231
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 232
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of 233
extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no extreme 234
SuperHyperVertex of an extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 235
extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only 236
two extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. 237
Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperMatching is up. The obvious simple 238
extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperMatching is an 239
extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the 240
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 241

Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 242
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 243
extreme SuperHyperMatching is up. To sum them up, the extreme 244
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 245

6/188
Is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 246
SuperHyperMatching. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 247

Is an extreme SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 249
ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices 250
such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme 251
SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme 252
SuperHyperMatching and it’s an extreme SuperHyperMatching. Since it’s 253
extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only 257
less than three extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 258
SuperHyperSet, 259

Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperMatching, 260

Is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 261
SuperHyperMatching, not: 262

Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 263

Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 264
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 265
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 266
7/188
is only and only 270

• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperMatching, is up. 271
E1 and E3 SuperHyperMatching are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a 272
loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 273
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 274
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 275
an endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 276
extreme SuperHyperMatching. 277



8/188



SuperHyperSet, 313


9/188



E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 326
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 327
namely, E4 . 328


10/188




11/188
SuperHyperSet, 364





• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperMatching, is up. 376
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 377
12/188
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 378
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 379
C(N SHG) = {E4 , E2 } is an extreme SuperHyperMatching.

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



13/188


SuperHyperSet, 415



14/188


There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 428
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 429
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 430
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperMatching = {E1 }.

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


15/188
extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are are only 443
same extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. 444
extreme SuperHyperSet includes only same extreme SuperHyperVertices. But 447
the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 448

Doesn’t have less than same SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 450
SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 451

Is the obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 454

extreme SuperHyperEdge for all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are only less 465
than same extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 466
SuperHyperSet, 467

16/188
Thus the obvious extreme SuperHyperMatching, 468

SuperHyperMatching, is: 470

Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, is: 471

obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 474

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is mentioned as 479
the SuperHyperModel ESHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 480
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. 482
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atching = {Ei }22

i=12 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = 5z 11 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperM atching = {Vi }22
i=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 22 .
17/188

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
Is an extreme SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an extreme 490

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
18/188
SuperHyperSet, 518

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
19/188

i=12 .
i=1 .

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

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
20/188

i=15 .
i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 566

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
21/188

i=15 .
i=1 .
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the 580
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. The 581
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 582

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

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
22/188

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 614

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
23/188

i=15 .
i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 626
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 627
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 630
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 631

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
24/188

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 667

i=12 .
i=1 .
25/188

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .

i=12 .
i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of 679
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 680

i=15 .
i=1 .
26/188

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
27/188
SuperHyperSet, 717

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .

i=15 .
i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 729
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 730
28/188
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atching = {E1 , E3 }.

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



29/188

SuperHyperSet, 767




30/188

In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 779
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atching = {Ei }6i=2 .

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

i=1 .
31/188

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 816

i=1 .

i=1 .
32/188

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .


33/188



34/188
SuperHyperSet, 865





35/188
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atching = {E1 }.

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



36/188

SuperHyperSet, 914




37/188

In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this 926
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme graph G : (V, E) thus 927
the notions in both settings are coincided. 928
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperM atching = {E2i−1 }3i=1 .


38/188



SuperHyperSet, 965


39/188



In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as 977
Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 978
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atching = {E2i−1 }3i=1 .

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

i=1 .
40/188

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
SuperHyperSet, 1015

i=1 .
41/188

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
42/188

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
43/188
SuperHyperSet, 1064

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .

i=1 .
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as 1076
Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figure (17). 1077
44/188

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



45/188

SuperHyperSet, 1114




46/188

In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1126


47/188



SuperHyperSet, 1163

48/188




49/188

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




50/188
SuperHyperSet, 1212





51/188
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperMatching

in the Example (4.1)
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 an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

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

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

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

sometimes the extreme SuperHyperSet
52/188


53/188


54/188


55/188


56/188


57/188


58/188


59/188


60/188


61/188

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

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

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

connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality.
There are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the
setting of the graph titled path and cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely
direction star as the examples-classes, are well-known classes in that setting and they
could be considered as the examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight
bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 1225
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 1226
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 1227
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 1228
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the extreme 1229
62/188
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 1230
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 1231
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 1232
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1233
are coming up. 1234
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an extreme

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

R-SuperHyperMatching. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such
that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices
instead of all given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme
63/188
SuperHyperMatching and it’s an extreme SuperHyperMatching. Since it’s

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount
extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet
called the extreme SuperHyperMatching. There isn’t only less than two extreme
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious extreme R-SuperHyperMatching,
is up. The non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme

SuperHyperMatching, not:
Is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 1235
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1236
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1237
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1238
“neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching” 1239
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching, 1241
is only and only
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

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


of
1243
64/188
Proposition 4.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the extreme number of R-SuperHyperMatching has, the least cardinality, the lower
sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperMatching with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1244
cardinality. 1245
Proof. The extreme structure of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching decorates the

extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any extreme connections so as this
extreme style implies different versions of extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum
extreme cardinality in the terms of extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower
extreme bound is to have the maximum extreme groups of extreme SuperHyperVertices
have perfect extreme connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of
this extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the used
extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its extreme properties taken from the fact that
it’s simple. If there’s no more than one extreme SuperHyperVertex in the targeted
extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no extreme connection. Furthermore, the extreme
existence of one extreme SuperHyperVertex has no extreme effect to talk about the
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. Since at least two extreme SuperHyperVertices involve
to make a title in the extreme background of the extreme SuperHyperGraph. The
extreme SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least
two extreme SuperHyperVertices make the extreme version of extreme SuperHyperEdge.
Thus in the extreme setting of non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at
least one extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is
used as extreme adjective for the initial extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no
extreme appearance of the loop extreme version of the extreme SuperHyperEdge and
this extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The extreme adjective “loop” on
the basic extreme framework engages one extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never
happens in this extreme setting. With these extreme bases, on an extreme
SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least an
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme cardinality of an extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme
cardinality at least an extreme SuperHyperEdge. Assume an extreme SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {z}. This extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching
since either the extreme SuperHyperGraph is an obvious extreme SuperHyperModel
thus it never happens since there’s no extreme usage of this extreme framework and
even more there’s no extreme connection inside or the extreme SuperHyperGraph isn’t
obvious and as its consequences, there’s an extreme contradiction with the term
“extreme R-SuperHyperMatching” since the maximum extreme cardinality never
happens for this extreme style of the extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s
no extreme connection inside as mentioned in first extreme case in the forms of
drawback for this selected extreme SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This extreme case implies having the extreme style of on-quasi-triangle
extreme style on the every extreme elements of this extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely,
the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that some extreme amount of the extreme SuperHyperVertices
are on-quasi-triangle extreme style. The extreme cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet
65/188
Is the maximum in comparison to the extreme SuperHyperSet
But the lower extreme bound is up. Thus the minimum extreme cardinality of the
maximum extreme cardinality ends up the extreme discussion. The first extreme term
refers to the extreme setting of the extreme SuperHyperGraph but this key point is
enough since there’s an extreme SuperHyperClass of an extreme SuperHyperGraph has
no on-quasi-triangle extreme style amid some amount of its extreme
SuperHyperVertices. This extreme setting of the extreme SuperHyperModel proposes
an extreme SuperHyperSet has only some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices from
one extreme SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no extreme amount of extreme
SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these extreme
SuperHyperVertices. The extreme cardinality of this extreme SuperHyperSet is the
maximum and the extreme case is occurred in the minimum extreme situation. To sum
them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum extreme cardinality such that
Contains some extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching for the extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 1246
extreme background in the extreme terms of worst extreme case and the common theme 1247
of the lower extreme bound occurred in the specific extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 1248
extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are extreme free-quasi-triangle. 1249
are coming up. 1251



66/188


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



67/188
is only and only

To sum them up, assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then the extreme number of R-SuperHyperMatching has, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperMatching with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1260
cardinality. 1261
Proposition 4.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is 1262
at least the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme 1263
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 1264
words, the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 1265
extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme 1266
SuperHyperMatching in some cases but the maximum number of the extreme 1267
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, has 1268
the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. 1269
Proof. Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme number of

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

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
68/188
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperGraph. The formal definition is
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and only
one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the extreme
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the extreme SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching but
with slightly differences in the maximum extreme cardinality amid those extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|extreme cardinality ,

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

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 1270
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
1271
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an extreme SuperHyperMatching, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme cardinality of the extreme
R-SuperHyperMatching is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching 1272
is at least the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme 1273
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 1274
other words, the maximum number of the extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 1275
69/188
maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme 1276
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1278
has the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme 1279
R-SuperHyperMatching. 1280
are coming up. 1282




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
70/188


is only and only



of
71/188
To sum them up, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an

extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the extreme cardinality of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Proposition 4.5. Assume a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 1300
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 1301
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 1302
any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 1303
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme 1304
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices in 1305
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 1306
of them but not all of them. 1307
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 1308
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 1309
some issues about the extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 1310
remarks on the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 1311
there’s distinct amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of extreme 1312
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1313
SuperHyperVertices but this extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1314
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 1315
doesn’t have maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 1316
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 1317
extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching 1318
where the extreme completion of the extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 1319
literarily, an extreme embedded R-SuperHyperMatching. The SuperHyperNotions of 1320
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 1321
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1322
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1323
SuperHyperSets have the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1324
extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of extreme 1325
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum extreme style of the embedded 1326
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. The interior types of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1327
are deciders. Since the extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by 1328
the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and 1329
more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the extreme SuperHyperSet for any 1330
distinct types of extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. 1331
Thus extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one extreme 1332
SuperHyperEdge and in extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior extreme 1333
SuperHyperVertices in that extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded extreme 1334
SuperHyperMatching, there’s the usage of exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices since 1335
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 1336
72/188
relevant than the title “interior”. One extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, 1337
inside. Thus, the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 1338
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 1339
implying the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. The extreme R-SuperHyperMatching 1340
with the exclusion of the exclusion of all extreme SuperHyperVertices in one extreme 1341
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching with the 1342
inclusion of all extreme SuperHyperVertices in one extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an 1343
extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1344
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge 1345
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme 1346
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching minus all 1347
extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1348
there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1349
extreme SuperHyperVertices in an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, minus all 1350
extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1351
are coming up. 1353



73/188

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

is only and only

74/188


of
To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 1362
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 1363
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 1364
any given extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 1365
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme 1366
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices 1367
in an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 1368
some of them but not all of them. 1369
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1370
all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme 1371
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching if for any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme 1372
SuperHyperVertex, some interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme 1373
SuperHyperNeighbors with no extreme exception at all minus all extreme 1374
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1375
Proof. The main definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching has two titles. An 1376
extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching and its corresponded quasi-maximum extreme 1377
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any extreme 1378
number, there’s an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching with that quasi-maximum 1379
extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded extreme 1380
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1381
extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the extreme 1382
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatchings for all extreme numbers less than its extreme 1383
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the extreme SuperHyperMatching ends 1384
up but this essence starts up in the terms of the extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching, 1385
again and more in the operations of collecting all the extreme 1386
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatchings acted on the all possible used formations of the extreme 1387
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one extreme number. This extreme number is considered 1388
as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-SuperHyperMatchings. Let 1389
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme SuperHyperMatching be an extreme 1390
number, an extreme SuperHyperSet and an extreme SuperHyperMatching. Then 1391
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme SuperHyperMatching ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the extreme SuperHyperMatching is 1392
75/188
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1393
GExtreme SuperHyperMatching ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1394
technical definition for the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 1395
GExtreme SuperHyperMatching =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the extreme 1396
SuperHyperMatching poses the upcoming expressions. 1397
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1398
= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1399

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1400


76/188
1401
= zExtreme Number |

1402

1403

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “extreme 1404
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the extreme 1405
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1406
incident to an extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “extreme 1407
Quasi-SuperHyperMatching” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “extreme 1408
Quasi-SuperHyperMatching” since “extreme Quasi-SuperHyperMatching” happens 1409
“extreme SuperHyperMatching” in an extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1410
and background but “extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “extreme 1411
SuperHyperMatching” in an extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1412
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the extreme 1413
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “extreme 1414
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “extreme Quasi-SuperHyperMatching”, and “extreme 1415
SuperHyperMatching” are up. 1416
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1417
GExtreme SuperHyperMatching be an extreme number, an extreme 1418
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an extreme SuperHyperMatching and the new terms are 1419
up. 1420

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
77/188
1421
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1422
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1423
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = max zExtreme Number }.
And with go back to initial structure, 1424


1425
= zExtreme Number |

1426
= maxzExtreme Number

1427

78/188
Thus, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1428
extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching if for 1429
any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1430
extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1431
extreme exception at all minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1432
are coming up. 1434




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
79/188


is only and only



of
80/188
To sum them up, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all 1443
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme 1444
Proposition 4.7. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1449
extreme R-SuperHyperMatching only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices 1450
and all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge 1451
where there’s any of them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s 1452
all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all extreme 1453
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1454
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1455
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme 1456
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1457
Consider all extreme numbers of those extreme SuperHyperVertices from that extreme 1458
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1459
exclude to any given extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. 1460
Consider there’s an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching with the least cardinality, the 1461
lower sharp extreme bound for extreme cardinality. Assume a connected extreme 1462
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1463
SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme 1464
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some 1465
extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. 1466
Since it doesn’t have the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 1467
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme 1468
SuperHyperEdge to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The extreme 1469
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum 1470
extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices but 1471
it isn’t an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching. Since it doesn’t do the extreme procedure 1472
such that such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme 1473
SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside 1474
implying there’s, sometimes in the connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1475
ESHG : (V, E), an extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, 1476
to that extreme SuperHyperVertex in the extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do 1477
“the extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the 1478
intended extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of extreme 1479
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious extreme R-SuperHyperMatching, VESHE 1480
is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1481
R-SuperHyperMatching, VESHE , is an extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only 1482
all extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of extreme pairs are titled 1483
extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1484
ESHG : (V, E). Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1485
VESHE , is the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an extreme 1486
SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1488
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any extreme 1489
R-SuperHyperMatching only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and all 1490
exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge where 1491
there’s any of them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 1492
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all extreme 1493
81/188
are coming up. 1497




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
82/188


is only and only



of
83/188
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1506
Any extreme R-SuperHyperMatching only contains all interior extreme 1507
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1508
extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible extreme 1509
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no 1510
exception minus all extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but 1511
everything is possible about extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme 1512
SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1513
Remark 4.8. The words “ extreme SuperHyperMatching” and “extreme 1514
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum extreme type-style. In other words, 1515
they refer to the maximum extreme SuperHyperNumber and the extreme 1516
SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. 1517
Proposition 4.9. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1518
Consider an extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an extreme SuperHyperMatching 1519
has the members poses only one extreme representative in an extreme 1520
quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 1521
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an 1522
extreme SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (4.7), the extreme results 1523
are up. Thus on a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an 1524
extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an extreme SuperHyperMatching has the 1525
members poses only one extreme representative in an extreme 1526
quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 1527
5 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1528
The previous extreme approaches apply on the upcoming extreme results on extreme 1529
SuperHyperClasses. 1530
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1531
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching-style with the maximum extreme 1532
SuperHyperCardinality is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 1533
SuperHyperVertices. 1534
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1535
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 1536
extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions in the form of interior 1537
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdges not excluding 1538
only any interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the extreme unique 1539
SuperHyperEdges. An extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme number of 1540
all the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices. Also, 1541
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atching

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperM atchingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
84/188

SuperHyperSet





bound of
85/188
The extreme structure of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching decorates the extreme

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

86/188

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

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

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
87/188

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
1555

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 1565
88/188
The main definition of the extreme R-SuperHyperMatching has two titles. An 1609
89/188


= zExtreme Number |
[zExtreme

And then, 1632

90/188


1634
= zExtreme Number |

1635

1636

91/188
up. 1653

1654
= zExtreme Number |
1655
1656


1658
= zExtreme Number |

1659
= max
zExtreme Number

92/188
1660

are coming up. 1667




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
93/188
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

is only and only


94/188

of
Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme 1682
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperMatching, is up. There’s neither empty 1722
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of 1723
95/188
extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple extreme 1724
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. The extreme SuperHyperSet 1725
of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1726

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperMatching. The 1727

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1730
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 1731
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex 1732
of an extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for 1733
all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two extreme SuperHyperVertices 1734
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme 1735
SuperHyperMatching is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1736
extreme SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two 1737
extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1738

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
extreme SuperHyperMatching is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of 1742
96/188
the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1743

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1748
that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices 1749
given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperMatching 1750
and it’s an extreme SuperHyperMatching. Since it’s 1751
all extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three extreme 1755
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, 1756

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
97/188

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1762
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1763

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.3. In the Figure (21), the connected extreme SuperHyperPath 1769
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1770
extreme SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperMatching. 1771
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1772
Then an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1773
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions on the form of 1774
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the same extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods 1775
not excluding any extreme SuperHyperVertex. An extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching 1776
98/188
Figure 21. An extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of extreme Super-

HyperMatching in the Example (5.3)
has the extreme half number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the 1777
maximum extreme cardinality. Also, 1778

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

SuperHyperSet

99/188




bound of

100/188

101/188

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

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

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
102/188
E
1792

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
103/188


104/188
= zExtreme Number |

And then, 1869



105/188
1871
= zExtreme Number |

1872

1873

up. 1890

106/188
1891
= zExtreme Number |
1892
1893


1895
= zExtreme Number |

1896

1897

107/188
are coming up. 1904




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
108/188


is only and only



of
109/188
110/188

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
.
111/188

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
.
112/188

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.5. In the Figure (22), the connected extreme SuperHyperCycle 2006
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, in 2007
the extreme SuperHyperModel (22), is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 2008
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 2009
an extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2010
extreme SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to an extreme SuperHyperEdge. An extreme 2011
113/188
Figure 22. An extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme

SuperHyperMatching in the extreme Example (5.5)
quasi-R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme number of the extreme cardinality of the 2012
one extreme SuperHyperEdge. Also, 2013

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

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

SuperHyperSet

114/188




bound of

115/188

116/188

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

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

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
117/188
E
2027

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
118/188


119/188
= zExtreme Number |

And then, 2104



120/188
2106
= zExtreme Number |

2107

2108

up. 2125

121/188
2126
= zExtreme Number |
2127
2128


2130
= zExtreme Number |

2131

2132

122/188
are coming up. 2139




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
123/188


is only and only



of
124/188
125/188

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

126/188

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

127/188

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

Example 5.7. In the Figure (23), the connected extreme SuperHyperStar 2241
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by 2242
the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 2243
connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel 2244
(23), is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 2245
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 2246
Then an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2247
extreme SuperHyperVertices with no extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme 2248
128/188
Figure 23. An extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme

SuperHyperMatching in the extreme Example (5.7)
SuperHyperVertices titled extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. An extreme 2249
R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme maximum number of on extreme cardinality of 2250
the minimum SuperHyperPart minus those have common extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 2251
and not unique extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 2252

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

SuperHyperSet

129/188




bound of

130/188



131/188


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

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

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
132/188
Or
E
2266

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
133/188


134/188
= zExtreme Number |

And then, 2343



135/188
2345
= zExtreme Number |

2346

2347

up. 2364

136/188
2365
= zExtreme Number |
2366
2367


2369
= zExtreme Number |

2370

2371

137/188
are coming up. 2378




SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
138/188


is only and only



of
139/188
140/188

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
141/188

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
142/188

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.9. In the extreme Figure (24), the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2480
ESHB : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme 2481
SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme 2482
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in 2483
the extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 2484
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2485
ESHM : (V, E). Then an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet 2486
of the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exception in the 2487
extreme form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from an extreme SuperHyperPart 2488
and only no exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another 2489
SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than 2490
some of them aren’t SuperHyperNeighbors to all. An extreme R-SuperHyperMatching 2491
has the extreme maximum number on all the extreme summation on the extreme 2492
cardinality of the all extreme SuperHyperParts form some SuperHyperEdges minus those 2493
make extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all or not unique. Also, 2494

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
143/188
Figure 24. An extreme SuperHyperBipartite extreme Associated to the extreme

Notions of extreme SuperHyperMatching in the Example (5.9)

SuperHyperSet



144/188


bound of

145/188

146/188

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

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

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2508

147/188

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
148/188


= zExtreme Number |
149/188
[zExtreme

And then, 2585



2587
= zExtreme Number |

2588

150/188
2589

up. 2606

2607
= zExtreme Number |
2608
2609
151/188


2611
= zExtreme Number |

2612

2613

are coming up. 2620



152/188


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



153/188
is only and only



of
154/188

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
155/188

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
156/188

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
157/188
Figure 25. An extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme

SuperHyperMatching in the Example (5.11)

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.11. In the Figure (25), the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2722
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme 2723
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme 2724
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 2725
in the extreme SuperHyperModel (25), is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 2726
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 2727
Then an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior 2728
extreme SuperHyperVertices, excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only no 2729
exception in the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from same extreme 2730
SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion on extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them 2731
and not all. An extreme R-SuperHyperMatching has the extreme maximum number on 2732
all the extreme number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges don’t have common extreme 2733
158/188
SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 2734

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

SuperHyperSet





159/188
bound of

160/188



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

Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
161/188
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2748

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
162/188
163/188


= zExtreme Number |
164/188
[zExtreme

And then, 2825



2827
= zExtreme Number |

2828

2829

165/188
up. 2846

2847
= zExtreme Number |
2848
2849


166/188
2851
= zExtreme Number |

2852

2853

are coming up. 2860



167/188

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

168/188
is only and only



of
169/188

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
170/188

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
.
171/188

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
.
172/188
Figure 26. An extreme SuperHyperWheel extreme Associated to the extreme Notions

of extreme SuperHyperMatching in the extreme Example (5.13)

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.13. In the extreme Figure (??), the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel 2962
N SHW : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme 2963
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 2964
of the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the extreme 2965
SuperHyperModel (??), is the extreme SuperHyperMatching. 2966
6 General extreme Results 2967
For the extreme SuperHyperMatching theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 2968
theory, some general results are introduced in the setting of SuperHyperGraph theory 2969
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 2970
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the extreme SuperHyperMatching is “redefined” on the 2971
positions of the alphabets. 2972
Corollary 6.2. Assume extreme SuperHyperMatching. Then 2973
extreme extremeSuperHyperM atching =

{theextremeSuperHyperM atchingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|extremecardinalityamidthoseextremeSuperHyperM atching. }
173/188
plus one SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 2974
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 2975
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 2976
Corollary 6.3. Assume a extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of the 2977
alphabet. Then the notion of extreme SuperHyperMatching and extreme 2978
SuperHyperMatching coincide. 2979
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a extreme 2981
SuperHyperMatching if and only if it’s a extreme SuperHyperMatching. 2982
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 2984
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 2985
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 2986
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its extreme SuperHyperMatching is its 2987
extreme SuperHyperMatching and reversely. 2988
Corollary 6.7. Assume a extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 2989
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 2990
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its extreme SuperHyperMatching is its 2991
extreme SuperHyperMatching and reversely. 2992
Corollary 6.8. Assume a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its extreme 2993
SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined if and only if its extreme SuperHyperMatching 2994
isn’t well-defined. 2995
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 2996
extreme SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined if and only if its extreme 2997
SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined. 2998
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 3000
Then its extreme SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined if and only if its extreme 3001
SuperHyperMatching isn’t well-defined. 3002
Corollary 6.11. Assume a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its extreme 3003
SuperHyperMatching is well-defined if and only if its extreme SuperHyperMatching is 3004
well-defined. 3005
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 3006
extreme SuperHyperMatching is well-defined if and only if its extreme 3007
SuperHyperMatching is well-defined. 3008
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 3010
Then its extreme SuperHyperMatching is well-defined if and only if its extreme 3011
SuperHyperMatching is well-defined. 3012
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 3013
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3014
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3015
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3016
174/188
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3017
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3018
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3019
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 3020
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3021
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3022
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3023
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3024
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3025
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3026
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 3027
independent SuperHyperSet is 3028
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3029
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3030
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3031
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3032
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3033
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3034
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperUniform 3035
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 3036
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3037
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3038
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3039
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3040
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3041
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3042
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3043
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 3044
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 3045
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3046
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3047
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3048
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3049
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3050
175/188
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3051
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3052
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 3054
(i) : the extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3055
(ii) : the extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3056
(iii) : the connected extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3057
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3058
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3059
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3060
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3061
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3062
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 3064
(i) : the dual extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3065
(ii) : the dual extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3066
(iii) : the dual connected extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3067
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3068
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3069
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3070
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3071
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 3074
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3075
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 3076
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 3077
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3081
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3082
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3083
176/188
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3086
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3087
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3088
is a 3089
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3093
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3094
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3095
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 3098
number of 3099
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3103
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3104
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3105
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 3106
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 3107
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3108
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 3110
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 3111
(iv) : extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3115
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3116
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3117
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 3118
number is at most O(ESHG) and the extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 3119
177/188
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 3120
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the extreme number is 3121
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 3122
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3126
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3128
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. The 3129
number is 0 and the extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 3130
setting of dual 3131
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3135
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3136
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3137
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 3139
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) 3141
and the extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 3142
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3146
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3147
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3148
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 3150
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the extreme number is 3151
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3152
t>
2
178/188
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3158
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 3159
extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 3160
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 3161
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 3162
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 3163
a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 3164
such that 3165
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 3166
(ii) vx ∈ E. 3167
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 3168
a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching, then 3169
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 3170
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 3171
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 3172
(i) Γ ≤ O; 3173
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 3174
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 3175
connected. Then 3176
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 3177
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3178
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 3179
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3180
SuperHyperMatching; 3181
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3182
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3183
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 3184
a dual extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3185
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 3186
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3187
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 3189
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 3190
179/188
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3191
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 3192
dual extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3193
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 3194
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3195
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 3197
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3198
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 3199
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 3200
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 3202
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3203
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3205
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3206
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 3207
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 3209
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3210
(ii) Γ = 1; 3211
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 3212
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual extreme 3213
SuperHyperMatching. 3214
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 3215
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 3216
maximal SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3217
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 3218
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 3219
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 3220
maximal SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3221
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 3222
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3223
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 3225
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 3226
S={vi }i=1
180/188
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3227
SuperHyperMatching. 3228
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 3229
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3230
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 3232
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 3233
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3234
extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3235
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of extreme 3236
SuperHyperStars with common extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 3237
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3238
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF; 3239
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 3240
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 3241
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual extreme 3242
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E). 3243
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 3244
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common extreme SuperHyperVertex 3245
SuperHyperSet. Then 3246
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3247
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF; 3248
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 3249

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 3250
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal extreme 3251
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 3253
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common extreme SuperHyperVertex 3254
SuperHyperSet. Then 3255
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3256
SuperHyperMatching for N SHF : (V, E); 3257
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 3258

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 3259
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal extreme 3260
following statements hold; 3263
181/188
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 3264
t-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching, then S is an 3265
s-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3266
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 3267
t-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching, then S is a dual 3268
s-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3269
following statements hold; 3271
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 3272
t-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching, then S is an 3273
s-SuperHyperPowerful extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3274
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 3275
t-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching, then S is a dual 3276
s-SuperHyperPowerful extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3277
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 3278
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 3279
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 3280
2-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3281
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3282
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 3284
extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3285
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3286
r-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3287
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 3288
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 3289
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3290
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3292
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 3294
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3296
r-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3297
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 3299
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c
+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3300
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3302
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 3304
182/188
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3307
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 3309
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 3310
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3312
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 3314
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching; 3315
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3317
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 3319
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive extreme 3320
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3322
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3324
2-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3327
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 3329
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3330
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3332
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3334
2-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperMatching. 3337
7 extreme Problems and extreme Questions 3338
In what follows, some “extreme problems” and some “extreme questions” are extremely 3339
proposed. 3340
The SuperHyperMatching and the extreme SuperHyperMatching are extremely 3341
defined on a real-world extreme application, titled “Cancer’s extreme recognitions”. 3342
Question 7.1. Which the else extreme SuperHyperModels could be defined based on 3343
Cancer’s extreme recognitions? 3344
183/188
Question 7.2. Are there some extreme SuperHyperNotions related to 3345
SuperHyperMatching and the extreme SuperHyperMatching? 3346
Question 7.3. Are there some extreme Algorithms to be defined on the extreme 3347
SuperHyperModels to compute them extremely? 3348
Question 7.4. Which the extreme SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 3349
SuperHyperMatching and the extreme SuperHyperMatching? 3350
Problem 7.5. The SuperHyperMatching and the extreme SuperHyperMatching do 3351
extremely a extreme SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s extreme recognitions and they’re 3352
based extremely on extreme SuperHyperMatching, are there else extremely? 3353
Problem 7.6. Which the fundamental extreme SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 3354
extreme SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 3355
Problem 7.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s extreme recognitions 3356
concerning the multiple types of extreme SuperHyperNotions? 3357
Table 1. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

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
In the Table (1), benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out pointed out 3358
and spoken out. 3359
References 3360
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3361
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 3362
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 3363
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 3364
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 3365
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3366
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3367
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3368
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3369
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3370
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3371
(2022) 242-263. 3372
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3373
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3374
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3375
184/188
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3376
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3377
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3378
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3379
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3380
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3381
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3382
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3383
6. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3384
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3385
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3386
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3387
7. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3388
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3389
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3390
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3391
8. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3392
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3393
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3394
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3395
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3396
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3397
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3398
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3399
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3400
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3401
11. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3402
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3403
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3404
12. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3405
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3406
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 3407
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3408
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3410
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3411
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3412
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3413
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3414
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3415
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3416
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3417
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3418
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3419
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3420
185/188
16. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3421
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3422
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3423
17. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3424
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3425
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3426
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3427
18. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3428
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3429
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3430
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3431
19. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3432
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3433
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3434
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 3435
20. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3436
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3437
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3438
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3439
21. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3440
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3441
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3442
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3443
22. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3444
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3445
23. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3447
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3448
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3449
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 3450
24. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3451
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3452
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3453
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3454
25. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3455
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3456
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3459
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3460
27. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3461
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3462
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3463
186/188
28. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3464
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3465
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3466
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3467
29. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3468
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3469
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3470
30. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3471
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3472
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3473
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3474
31. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3475
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3476
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3477
32. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3478
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3479
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3480
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3481
33. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3482
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3483
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3484
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3485
34. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3486
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3487
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3488
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3489
35. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 3490
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 3491
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 3492
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 3493
36. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 3494
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 3495
37. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 3496
(2016) 86-101. 3497
38. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 3498
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 3499
39. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 3500
40. M. Akram, and G. Shahzadi, “Operations on Single-Valued Neutrosophic 3501
Graphs”, Journal of uncertain systems 11 (1) (2017) 1-26. 3502
41. G. Argiroffo et al., “Polyhedra associated with locating-dominating, open 3503
locating-dominating and locating total-dominating sets in graphs”, Discrete 3504
Applied Mathematics (2022). (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2022.06.025.) 3505
42. L. Aronshtam, and H. Ilani, “Bounds on the average and minimum attendance 3506
in preference-based activity scheduling”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 306 3507
(2022) 114-119. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2021.09.024.) 3508
187/188
43. J. Asplund et al., “A Vizing-type result for semi-total domination”, Discrete 3509
Applied Mathematics 258 (2019) 8-12. 3510
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2018.11.023.) 3511
44. K. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets”, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20 (1986) 87-96. 3512
45. R.A. Beeler et al., “Total domination cover rubbling”, Discrete Applied 3513
Mathematics 283 (2020) 133-141. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2019.12.020.) 3514
46. S. Bermudo et al., “On the global total k-domination number of graphs”, 3515
Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 42-50. 3516
47. M. Bold, and M. Goerigk, “Investigating the recoverable robust single machine 3518
scheduling problem under interval uncertainty”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 3519
313 (2022) 99-114. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2022.02.005.) 3520
48. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 3521
(2016) 86-101. 3522
49. V. Gledel et al., “Maker–Breaker total domination game”, Discrete Applied 3523
Mathematics 282 (2020) 96-107. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2019.11.004.) 3524
50. M.A. Henning, and A. Yeo, “A new upper bound on the total domination 3525
number in graphs with minimum degree six ”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 302 3526
(2021) 1-7. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2021.05.033.) 3527
51. V. Irsic, “Effect of predomination and vertex removal on the game total 3528
domination number of a graph”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 257 (2019) 3529
216-225. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2018.09.011.) 3530
52. B.S. Panda, and P. Goyal, “Hardness results of global total k-domination 3531
problem in graphs”, Discrete Applied Mathematics (2021). 3532
53. N. Shah, and A. Hussain, “Neutrosophic soft graphs”, Neutrosophic Set and 3534
Systems 11 (2016) 31-44. 3535
54. A. Shannon and K.T. Atanassov, “A first step to a theory of the intuitionistic 3536
fuzzy graphs”, Proceeding of FUBEST (Lakov, D., Ed.) Sofia (1994) 59-61. 3537
55. F. Smarandache, “A Unifying field in logics neutrosophy: Neutrosophic 3538
probability, set and logic, Rehoboth: ” American Research Press (1998). 3539
56. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 3540
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 3541
57. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control 8 (1965) 338-354. 3542
188/188

The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer&#39;s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer&#39;s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer&#39;s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 January 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202301.0265.

The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 2

Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s 3

Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 4

Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 5

SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph 6

and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 7

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

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an extreme SuperHyperMatching 13

C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 14

cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s 15

no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to 16

have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 17

C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 18

neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 19

cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic 20

SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 21

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 22

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an extreme SuperHyperMatching 23

SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 24

N SHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined 25

as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 26

SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge 27

and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and 28

the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching 29

SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 30

N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic 31

coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic 32

cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality 33

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not 34

to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 35

have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the 36

neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; an 37

extreme R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 38

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 39

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 40

SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 41

SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 42

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 43

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic 44

© 2023 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 45

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 46

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an extreme 47

R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 48

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

coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 50

high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 51

SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 52

SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic 53

R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 54

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 55

the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum 56

neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high neutrosophic 57

cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no neutrosophic 58

SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 59

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 60

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly 61

corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 62

The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer's Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer's Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer's Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph