Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super Mechanism

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368145050
Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super Mechanism
Preprint · February 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
279 PUBLICATIONS 2,640 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 02 February 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper 3
Diagnosis On Super Mechanism 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
ABSTRACT 8
In this research, [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] Assume

a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). A
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; Neutrosophic i-strength 9
(m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; Neutrosophic 10
strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . [Different Neutrosophic Types of 11
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 12
(NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 13
(NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ 14
maximum number of Neutrosophic t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from 15
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 16
(NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of 17
Neutrosophic i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 18
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 19
1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 20
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 21
Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Neutrosophic 22
connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic strength of 23
SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to 24
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. ((Neutrosophic) 25
SuperHyperConnectivities). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 26
an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 27
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s 28
either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic 29
f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 30
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 31
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 32
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 33
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; a 34
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, 35
Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and 36
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 37
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 38
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 39
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 40
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 41
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic 42
i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for 43
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 44
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 45
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 46
of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 47
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and 48
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 49
SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 50
t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic 51
connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 52
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 53
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 54
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 55
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 56
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Neutrosophic power 57
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities 58
if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic 59
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 61
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 62
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 63
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; a 64
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, 65
Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and 66
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 67
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 68
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 69
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 70
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities 71
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic 72
i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for 73
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 74
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet 76
S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 77
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and 78
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 79
SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 80
t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic 81
connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 82
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 83
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 84
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 85
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 86
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; 87
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this 88
research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 89
SuperHyperConnectivities and Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Two different 90
types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and 91
the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 92
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 93
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 94
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 95
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 96
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 97
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 98
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 99
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 100
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 101
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 102
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 103
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 104
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 105
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 106
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 107
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 108
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a Neutrosophic 109
SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 110
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 111
SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge 112
and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a 113
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 114
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a 115
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality Neutrosophic 116
SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 117
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 118
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a Neutrosophic 119
SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 120
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 121
the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 122
S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in 123
a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 124
SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a Neutrosophic 125
SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 126
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 128
Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 129
cardinality Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no Neutrosophic 130
SuperHyperVertex not to in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 131
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 132
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the Neutrosophic power is Neutrosophicly 133
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; a Neutrosophic 134
R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 135
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality 136
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge 137
and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a 138
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 139
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a 140
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality Neutrosophic 141
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a 142
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a 143
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a Neutrosophic 144
R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 145
the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 147
S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to 148
in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 149
SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a Neutrosophic 150
R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 151
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 153
Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 154
cardinality Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no Neutrosophic 155
SuperHyperVertex not to in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 156
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a 157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the Neutrosophic power is Neutrosophicly 158
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 159
δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 160
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 161
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 162
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 163
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 164
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a 165
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 166
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 167
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 168
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 169
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 170
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 171
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 172
version of a SuperHyperConnectivities . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 173
make a SuperHyperConnectivities more understandable. For the sake of having 174
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 175
“SuperHyperConnectivities ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 176
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 177
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 178
SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if 179
the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 180
HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 181
with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 182
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 183
“The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 184
HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 185
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 186
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 187
based on a SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 188
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 189
have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperConnectivities, then it’s 190
officially called a “SuperHyperConnectivities” but otherwise, it isn’t a 191
SuperHyperConnectivities . There are some instances about the clarifications for the 192
main definition titled a “SuperHyperConnectivities ”. These two examples get more 193
scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 194
SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperConnectivities . For the sake of having a 195
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 196
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” and a “Neutrosophic 197
SuperHyperConnectivities ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 198
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 199
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 200
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 201
Table holds. And a SuperHyperConnectivities are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 202
SuperHyperConnectivities” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 203
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 204
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities more 205
understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 206
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 207
SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 208
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 209
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Neutrosophic 210
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 211
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 212
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” where it’s 213
the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperConnectivities 214
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperConnectivities 215
.] SuperHyperConnectivities . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 216
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 217
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 218
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 219
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s only one 220
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 221
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 222
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 223
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 224
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 225
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 226
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 227
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 228
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 229
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 230
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 231
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 232
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 233
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 234
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 235
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 236
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 237
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 238
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 239
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 240
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 241
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 242
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 243
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 244
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 245
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 246
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 247
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 248
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, 249
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 250
either the longest SuperHyperConnectivities or the strongest SuperHyperConnectivities 251
in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperConnectivities, 252
called SuperHyperConnectivities, and the strongest SuperHyperConnectivities, called 253
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, some general results are introduced. Beyond 254
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 255
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 256
any style of a SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t any formation of any 257
SuperHyperConnectivities but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 258
SuperHyperConnectivities. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 259
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities theory, SuperHyperGraphs, 260
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 261
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) 262
SuperHyperConnectivities, Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 263
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 264
1 Background 265
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 266
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 267
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 268
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 269
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 270
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 271
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 272
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 273
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 274
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 275
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 276
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 277
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 278
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 279
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 280
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 281
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 282
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 283
majority of notions. 284
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 285
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 286
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 287
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 288
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 289
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 290
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 291
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 292
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 293
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 294
based on initial background. 295
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 296
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 297
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 298
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 299
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 300
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 301
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 302
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 303
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 304
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 305
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 306
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 307
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 308
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 309
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 310
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 311
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 312
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 313
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 314
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 315
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 316
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 317
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 318
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 319
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 320
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 321
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 322
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 323
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 324
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 325
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 326
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 327
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 328
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 329
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 330
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 331
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 332
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 333
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 334
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 335
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 336
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 337
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 338
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 339
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 340
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 341
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 342
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 343
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 344
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 345
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 346
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 347
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 348
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 349
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 350
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 351
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 352
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 353
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 354
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 355
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 356
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 357
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 358
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 359
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 360
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 361
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 362
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 363
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 364
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 365
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 366
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 367
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 368
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 369
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 370
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 371
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 372
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 373
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 374
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 375
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 376
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 377
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 378
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 379
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 380
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 381
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 382
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 383
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 384
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 385
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 386
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 387
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 388
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 389
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 390
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 391
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 392
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 393
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 394
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 395
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 396
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 397
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 398
Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 399
than 2732 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 400
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 401
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 402
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 403
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 404
in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 405
than 3504 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 406
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 407
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 408
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 409
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 410
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 411
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 412
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 413
See the seminal researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the framework 414
of Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 415
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–38]. Two popular research 416
books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 2638 and 3363 respectively, on 417
neutrosophic science is on [39, 40]. 418
2 Motivation and Contributions 419
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 420
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 421
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 422
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 423
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 424
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 425
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 426
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 427
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 428
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 429
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 430
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 431
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 432
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 433
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 434
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 435
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 436
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 437
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 438
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 439
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 440
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 441
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 442
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 443
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 444
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 445
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 446
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 447
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 448
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 449
formally called “ SuperHyperConnectivities” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 450
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 451
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 452
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 453
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 454
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 455
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 456
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 457
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 458
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 459
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 460
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 461
Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperConnectivities, 462
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 463
The aim is to find either the optimal SuperHyperConnectivities or the Neutrosophic 464
SuperHyperConnectivities in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general 465
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic 466
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 467
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 468
SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperConnectivities 469
but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperConnectivities. It, literarily, 470
deforms and it doesn’t form. 471
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 472
find the “ amount of SuperHyperConnectivities” of either individual of cells or the 473
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 474
of SuperHyperConnectivities” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 475
group of cells? 476
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 477
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 478
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 479
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 480
SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” on 481
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 482
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 483
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 484
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 485
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 486
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 487
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 488
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 489
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 490
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 491
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 492
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 493
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperConnectivities and 494
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, are figured out in sections “ 495
SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. In the sense 496
of tackling on getting results and in order to make sense about continuing the research, 497
the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced 498
and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut 499
what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 500
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are 501
some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 502
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 503
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The 504
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 505
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 506
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 507
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 508
SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Results on 509
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 510
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 511
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 512
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperConnectivities”. 513
The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 514
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 515
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 516
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 517
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 518
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 519
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 520
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 521
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 522
3 Preliminaries 523
In this section, the basic material in this research, is referred to [Single Valued 524
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 525
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.5,p.2), 526
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 527
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 528
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 529
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [38],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 530
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 531
(Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 532
to Ref. [38]. 533
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. 534
Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 535
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.1,p.1). 536
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x; then

the Neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 537
+
]− 0, 1 [. 538
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2). 539
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A

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

indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued Neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [38],Definition 540
2.5,p.2). 541
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 542
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 543
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 544
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 545
1, 2, . . . , n); 546
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 547
V; 548
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 549
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 550
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 551
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 552
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 553
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 554
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,
IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

and FV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[FV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0
where i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 . 555
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 556
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 557
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 558
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 559
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 560
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 561
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 562
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 563
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 564
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 565
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 566
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 567
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 568
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 569
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 570
could be characterized as follow-up items. 571
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 572
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 573
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 574
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 575
HyperEdge; 576
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 577
SuperEdge; 578
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 579
SuperHyperEdge. 580
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 581
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 582
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3). 583
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 584
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 585
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 586
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 587
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 588
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 589
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 590
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 591
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 592
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 593
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 594
1, 2, . . . , n); 595
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 596
V; 597
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 598
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 599
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 600
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 601
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 602
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 603
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 604
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 605
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 606
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 607
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 608
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 609
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 610
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 611
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 612
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 613
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 614
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 617
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 618
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 620
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 621
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 622
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 623
HyperEdge; 624
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 625
SuperEdge; 626
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 627
SuperHyperEdge. 628
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 629
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 630
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 631
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 632
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 633
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 634
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 635
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 636
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 637
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 638
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 639
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 640
given SuperHyperEdges; 641
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 642
SuperHyperEdges; 643
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 644
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 645
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 646
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 647
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 648
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 649
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 650
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 651
common SuperVertex. 652
Definition 3.14. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

(NSHG) S. Then a sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from 653
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 654
(NSHV) Vs if either of following conditions hold: 655
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 656
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 657
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 658
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 659
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 660
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 661
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 662
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 663
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 664
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 665
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 666
SuperHyperPaths). 667
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

a Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is
sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 669
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 670
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 671
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 672
SuperHyperPath . 673
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 674
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

A Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
(NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have 676
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 677
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 678
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 679
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 680
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 681
(NSHE)). (Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). 682
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 684
called 685
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 686
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 687
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 688
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 689
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 690
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 692
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 693
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 695
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 696
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 697
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 698
Definition 3.18. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnectivities). 699
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 701
called 702
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic 703
t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and 704
Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 705
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 706
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 707
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 708
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; 709
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic 710
Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 712
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 713
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 714
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 716
SuperHyperConnectivities; 717
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 718
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 721
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 723
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 724
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 725
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 726
Extreme coefficient; 727
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if 728
it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic 729
f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 730
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 731
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 732
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 733
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 734
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 735
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Neutrosophic 736
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 737
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic 738
Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 740
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 741
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 742
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 743
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; 744
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic 745
Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 747
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 748
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 749
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 751
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 753
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 756
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 758
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 759
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 760
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 761
Extreme coefficient; 762
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if 763
it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic 764
f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 765
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 766
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 767
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 768
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 769
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 770
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Neutrosophic 771
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 772
Definition 3.19. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperConnectivities). 773
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 774
(i) an δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 775
SuperHyperConnectivities such that either of the following expressions hold for 776
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 777
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 778
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 779
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic kind of 780
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities such that either of the following 781
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 782
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 783
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 784
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 785
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 786
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to 787
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 788
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 789
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 790
Definition 3.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 791
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 792
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.21)
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 793
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 794
understandable. 795
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 796
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus Neutrosophic 797
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 798
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic 799
SuperHyperPath , Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, Neutrosophic 800
SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic 801
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table 802
(2) holds. 803
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 804
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 805
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities more Neutrosophicly understandable. 806
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to 807
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. The 808
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 809
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 810
assign to the values. 811
Definition 3.22. Assume a SuperHyperConnectivities. It’s redefined a 812
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if the Table (3) holds. 813

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
4 Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 814
The Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. 815
Thus the non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, S is up. The Extreme 816
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, is: S is an Extreme 817
SuperHyperSet, is: S does includes only more than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 818
a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention 819
that the Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 820
“Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” 821
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Extreme type-SuperHyperSets 822
called the 823
SuperHyperConnectivities, 824
is only and only S in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 825
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. But all only obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] 826
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Extreme 827
SuperHyperConnectivities amid those type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected 828
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as a linearly-over-packed 829
SuperHyperModel is featured on the Figures. 830
Example 4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), 831
(9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), and (22). 832
• On the Figure (3), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 833
SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 834
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 835
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 836
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 837
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 838
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 839
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 840
SuperHyperConnectivities. 841
C(N SHG) = {E4 } is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.

C(N SHG) = z is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {Vi }i6=3 is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 3z is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
842
• On the Figure (4), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 843
SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 844
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 845
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 846
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 847
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 848
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 849
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. 850

C(N SHG) = z is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {Vi }i6=3 is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 3z is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (4.1)
Figure 2. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (4.1)
851
• On the Figure (5), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is 852
up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a 853
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 854
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . E2 is an isolated SuperHyperEdge. 855
With the exception of E2 , the concept could be applied. With keeping E2 in the 856
mind, the story is coming up. 857

C(N SHG) = z is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomia
C(N SHG) = {V1 , V2 , V3 } is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = z is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic 858
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 859
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 860
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 861

Is the Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 862
SuperHyperConnectivities. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 863
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 864

Is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an 865
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic 866
type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a 867
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 868
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one Neutrosophic 869
consecutive sequence of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the 870
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic 871
SuperHyperConnectivities but it has either all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges or 872
all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has all Neutrosophic 873
SuperHyperEdges. There’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities such that 874
it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are less than only four 875
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 876
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities 877
isn’t up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 878
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 879
includes only less than four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the 880
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 881

Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 883
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 884
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. To sum them up, the 885

Isn’t the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 888
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 889
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 890

Is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic 891
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 892
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one 893
Neutrosophic consecutive Neutrosophic sequence of Neutrosophic 894
SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one 895
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, but it has either all Neutrosophic 896
SuperHyperEdges or all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has 897
all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There’s no Neutrosophic 898
SuperHyperConnectivities such that it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 899
given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet; and it’s called the Neutrosophic 900
SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s a 901
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it has 902
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 903
S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only 904
one Neutrosophic consecutive Neutrosophic sequence of Neutrosophic 905
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities but it has either all Neutrosophic 907
all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There are only less than four Neutrosophic 909
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 910

Thus the obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, 911

Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 912
SuperHyperConnectivities, is: 913

Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is: 914

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 915
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 916
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 917
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” 918
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Neutrosophic 919
type-SuperHyperSets called the 920
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, 921
is only and only 922

• On the Figure (6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperConnectivities, is 923
up. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on 924
{F }, and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside 925
E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 926
C(N SHG) = {V3 , E1 , V4 , E2 , H, E1 , V3 } is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities

C(N SHG) = 4z 3 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomi
C(N SHG) = {V3 , V4 , H, V3 } is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 4z 4 is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.










up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 993
following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the 994
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 995
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities = {V5 , E1 , V4 , E4 , V5 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities = {V5 , V4 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 3 .










up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. 1063
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi , Ei , Vi+1 }21

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 22 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivities =
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 23 .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are more than only four 1081
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is 1083
up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1084
SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only less 1085
than four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic 1086
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1087

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1093
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1094

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There aren’t only less than four Neutrosophic 1114

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, 1116

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1117
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, is: 1118

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Doesn’t include only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected 1120
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 1121
the only Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1122

i=1 ∪ {V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+1

{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
up. The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic 1129
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Neutrosophic 1130
type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The 1131
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic 1132
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivities =

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are more than only four 1151

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic 1200
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivities = {}

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.



Does has less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1231
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is up. To sum them up, the 1233












In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1271
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1272
following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the 1275
SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s no coverage on either all SuperHyperVertices 1277
or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. 1278
Disclaimer: The terms are in this item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the 1279
notion isn’t seen and applied totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in 1280
the terms of neither of all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any 1281
coverage. Thus the terms Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, Neutrosophic 1282
Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial, Neutrosophic 1283
R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities, and Neutrosophic 1284
R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial are up even neither of 1285
the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the context are 1286
about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is quasi-notion 1287
even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for the convenient 1288
usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other applied 1289
segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of 1290
expressions. 1291

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , Vi , V16 , V1 }6i=2 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t less than only four 1313

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of 1360
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (11). 1361
type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s no 1366
coverage on either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the 1367
quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this 1368
item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied 1369
totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all 1370
SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms 1371
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, Neutrosophic 1372
Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial, Neutrosophic 1373
R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities, and Neutrosophic 1374
R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial are up even neither of 1375
the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the context are 1376
about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is quasi-notion 1377
even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for the convenient 1378
usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other applied 1379
segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of 1380
expressions. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic 1381

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
Is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an 1390
SuperHyperConnectivities. There are not only four Neutrosophic 1397
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1398
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. The obvious simple 1399
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1400

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Neutrosophic 1417
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s a 1418
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s 1419
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There are not only less than four 1424
SuperHyperSet, 1426

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }


{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }


{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1433
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called 1435
the 1436

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1439
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (12). 1440

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
SuperHyperSet, 1488

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
SuperHyperConnectivities, is not: 1491

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is not: 1492

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
the 1498

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1501
type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s only 1506
one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges between any given Neutrosophic amount of 1507
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus there isn’t any Neutrosophic 1508
SuperHyperConnectivities at all. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1509






SuperHyperSet, 1554




the 1564


{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }6i=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1575
SuperHyperConnectivities. The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1576
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the Neutrosophic 1577

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
SuperHyperSet, 1620

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
the 1630

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.




SuperHyperSet, 1686




the 1696

In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1699
this Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Neutrosophic graph 1700
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. 1701

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0





SuperHyperSet, 1754




the 1764

In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1767
this Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Neutrosophic graph 1768
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected 1769
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected 1770
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (17). 1771
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V8 , E3 , V9 , E4 , V8 }.

1779

1780

1781

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V8 , V9 , V8 }.
1782

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V15 V17 , V15 }.

1789

1790

1791

1792


1796

1797

1798

1799


1814

1815

1816

1817


1823

1824

1825

1826


1830

1831

1832

1833

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There are only less than four 1846
SuperHyperSet, 1848

1849

1850

1851

1852


1854

1855

1856

1857


1860

1861

1862

1863

the 1869

1872

1873

1874

1875


1884

1885

1886

1887


1894

1895

1896

1897


1901

1902

1903

1904


1919

1920

1921

1922


1928

1929

1930

1931


1935

1936

1937

1938

SuperHyperSet, 1953

1954

1955

1956

1957


1959

1960

1961

1962


1965

1966

1967

1968

the 1974

1977

1978

1979

1980


1989

1990

1991

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 322 .
1992


1999

2000

2001

2002


2006

2007

2008

2009


2024

2025

2026

2027


2033

2034


2035


2039

2040

2041

2042

erHyperGirth C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 2043
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 2044
SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one Neutrosophic 2045
consecutive Neutrosophic sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 2046
SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 2048
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s a Neutrosophic 2049
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s 2050
SuperHyperSet, 2057

2058

2059

2060

2061


2063

2064

2065

2066


2069

2070

2071

2072

the 2078

2081

2082

2083

2084







SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2124
ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 2125
SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 2129
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s a Neutrosophic 2130
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s 2131
SuperHyperSet, 2138



the 2147

up. 2152
Proposition 4.2. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2153
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 2154
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Figure 3. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperConnectivi-

ties in the Example (4.1)






Figure 10. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperConnec-

tivities in the Example (4.1)












Is a Neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least 2155
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic 2156
type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of 2157

Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2158
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 } isn’t a 2159
Neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities since neither Neutrosophic 2160
amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor Neutrosophic amount of Neutrosophic 2161
SuperHyperVertices where Neutrosophic amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of 2162
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any 2163
Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic consecutive consequence as the Neutrosophic icon 2164
and Neutrosophic generator of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the terms 2165
of the Neutrosophic longest form. Let us consider the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2166

This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the 2167
eligibilities to propose property such that there’s only one Neutrosophic consecutive 2168
Neutrosophic sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic 2169
SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities given by that 2170
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities 2171
but the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality indicates that these Neutrosophic 2172
type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the Neutrosophic lower bound in the term of 2173
Neutrosophic sharpness. In other words, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2174

Of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up 2175
but sometimes the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2176

Of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the
generality of the connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we
assume in the worst case, literally,
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }
Is a Neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least

cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the Neutrosophic cardinality, of a Neutrosophic
Neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
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 Neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is
only up in this Neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. It’s the
contradiction to that fact on the Neutrosophic generality. There are some
counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the
graph titled path and star as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction cycle 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
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Let V \ V \ {z, z 0 } in mind. There’s no Neutrosophic necessity on the Neutrosophic 2177
SuperHyperEdge since we need at least three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices to form 2178
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the Neutrosophic principles of 2179
the main Neutrosophic definition since there’s no Neutrosophic condition to be satisfied 2180
but the Neutrosophic condition is on the Neutrosophic existence of the Neutrosophic 2181
SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. In other 2182
words, if there are three Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges, then the Neutrosophic 2183
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended Neutrosophic definition to 2184
be Neutrosophicly applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z, z 0 } is withdrawn not by the 2185
Neutrosophic conditions of the main Neutrosophic definition but by the Neutrosophic 2186
necessity of the Neutrosophic pre-condition on the Neutrosophic usage of the main 2187
Neutrosophic definition. 2188
To make sense with the precise Neutrosophic words in the terms of “R-’, the 2189
follow-up Neutrosophic illustrations are Neutrosophicly coming up. 2190
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s only one Neutrosophic consecutive
Neutrosophic sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities given by that
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities,

instead of all given by Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is related to the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There are not only four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet
called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
includes only four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far four Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of
the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. To sum them up, the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Isn’t the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 2191
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2192

SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2194
ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 2195
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities 2198
given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 2199
SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. 2200
Since it’s the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic 2201
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that 2202
there’s only one Neutrosophic consecutive Neutrosophic sequence of Neutrosophic 2203
SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic 2204
SuperHyperConnectivities. There are not only less than four Neutrosophic 2205



SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only simple 2211
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 2214

In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic girth embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities
amid those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities, are
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2218
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 2219

Is a Neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least 2220
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic 2221
type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of 2222

2223
Proposition 4.3. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least 2224
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 2225
Proof. The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic

type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities decorates the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
don’t have received any Neutrosophic connections so as this Neutrosophic style implies
different versions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum Neutrosophic
cardinality in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower
Neutrosophic bound is to have the maximum Neutrosophic groups of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices have perfect Neutrosophic connections inside each of
SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter
but regarding the connectedness of the used Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising
from its Neutrosophic properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more
than one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
then there’s no Neutrosophic connection. Furthermore, the Neutrosophic existence of
one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no Neutrosophic effect to talk about the
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since at least two Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the Neutrosophic background of the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it
has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge but at least two Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices make the Neutrosophic version of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge.
Thus in the Neutrosophic setting of non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there
are at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word
“Simple” is used as Neutrosophic adjective for the initial Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no Neutrosophic appearance of the loop
Neutrosophic version of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The Neutrosophic adjective “loop” on the
basic Neutrosophic framework engages one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it never
happens in this Neutrosophic setting. With these Neutrosophic bases, on a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
thus there’s at least a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic cardinality at least a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities since
either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is an obvious Neutrosophic
SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no Neutrosophic usage of this
Neutrosophic framework and even more there’s no Neutrosophic connection inside or
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its consequences, there’s a

Neutrosophic contradiction with the term “Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities”
since the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality never happens for this Neutrosophic style
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no Neutrosophic
connection inside as mentioned in first Neutrosophic case in the forms of drawback for
this selected Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Let
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) }}
Comes up. This Neutrosophic case implies having the Neutrosophic style of
on-quasi-triangle Neutrosophic style on the every Neutrosophic elements of this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that
some Neutrosophic amount of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are
on-quasi-triangle Neutrosophic style. The Neutrosophic cardinality of the v
SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But the lower Neutrosophic bound is up. Thus the minimum Neutrosophic cardinality
of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality ends up the Neutrosophic discussion. The
first Neutrosophic term refers to the Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClass of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has no on-quasi-triangle
Neutrosophic style amid some amount of its Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. This
Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has only some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Neutrosophic amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The Neutrosophic cardinality of this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the Neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
Neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that
Contains some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2226
as used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 2227
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 2228
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 2229
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 2230
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 2231
are coming up. 2232


SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is related to the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended

includes only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. But the Neutrosophic
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s an
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s
for some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.
There isn’t only less than two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities,
is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnectivities, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 2233
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 2234
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 2235
“Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities” 2237
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities, 2239
is only and only

it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
To sum them up, assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then the Neutrosophic number of R-SuperHyperConnectivities has, the least
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 2241
bound for cardinality. 2242
Proposition 4.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 2243
R-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of 2244
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the 2245
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum 2246
number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic 2247
number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic 2248
SuperHyperConnectivities in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic 2249
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 2250
SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a 2251
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. 2252
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic

R-SuperHyperConnectivities but with slightly differences in the maximum Neutrosophic
cardinality amid those Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertices. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,
z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Neutrosophic

E
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 2253
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
2254
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the 2258
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 2259
Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic 2260
are coming up. 2266


SuperHyperVertices,



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


is only and only

To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality, the

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities is
the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Proposition 4.5. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2285
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 2286
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2287
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities minus all 2288
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 2289
there’s only an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 2290
distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic 2291
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some 2292
of them but not all of them. 2293
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 2294
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 2295
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 2296
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 2297
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 2298
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 2299
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2300
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 2301
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 2302
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 2303
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 2304
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities 2305
where the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus 2306
it’s, literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The 2307
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In 2308
the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 2309
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 2310
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 2311
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 2312
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 2313
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 2314
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 2315
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 2316
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 2317
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct 2318
types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic 2319
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be 2320
used only in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic 2321
SuperHyperRelation with the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that 2322
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Neutrosophic 2323
SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s the usage of exterior Neutrosophic 2324
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 2325
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Neutrosophic 2326
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 2327
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in 2328
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 2329
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the 2330
exclusion of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 2331
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities 2332
with the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 2333
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. To sum them 2334
up, in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2335
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the 2336
maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of 2337
any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities minus all Neutrosophic 2338
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 2339
an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 2340
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic 2341
are coming up. 2345


SuperHyperVertices,




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

is only and only



the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2354
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 2355
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2356
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities minus all 2357
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 2358
there’s only an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 2359
distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic 2360
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2363
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 2364
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 2365
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 2366
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 2367
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 2368
Proof. The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has two 2369
titles. a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities and its corresponded 2370
quasi-maximum Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of 2371
quasi-R-styles. For any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic 2372
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities with that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic 2373
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2374
If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic 2375
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Neutrosophic 2376
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess for all Neutrosophic numbers less than its 2377
Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Neutrosophic 2378
SuperHyperConnectivities ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 2379
Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, again and more in the operations of 2380
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess acted on the all 2381
possible used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one 2382
Neutrosophic number. This Neutrosophic number is 2383
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 2384
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2385
and GNeutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 2386
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 2387
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic 2388
SuperHyperConnectivities is re-formalized and redefined as follows. 2389
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 2390
technical definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. 2391
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 2392
SuperHyperConnectivities poses the upcoming expressions. 2393
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 2394
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 2395

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 2396


2397

2398

2399

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 2400
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 2401
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 2402
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 2403
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities” but, precisely, it’s 2404
the generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities” since 2405
“Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities” happens “Neutrosophic 2406
SuperHyperConnectivities” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 2407
and background but “Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens 2408
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial 2409
framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the 2410
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 2411
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic 2412
Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” are 2413
up. 2414
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 2415
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 2416
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities and the new 2417
terms are up. 2418

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
2419
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
2420
2421
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality = max zNeutrosoph
And with go back to initial structure, 2422


2423

2424

2425

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 2426
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 2427
are coming up. 2433


SuperHyperVertices,




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

is only and only



the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2442
Proposition 4.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2448
ESHG : (V, E). Any Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities only contains all 2449
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic 2450
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 2451
them has all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic 2452
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Neutrosophic 2453
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 2454
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2455
Proof. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 2456
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 2457
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 2458
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 2459
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 2460
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 2461
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 2462
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 2463
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2464
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 2465
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 2466
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 2467
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it doesn’t have 2468
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 2469
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 2470
have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2471
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 2472
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 2473
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it doesn’t do the 2474
Neutrosophic procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 2475
have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one 2476
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected 2477
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 2478
titled its Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in 2479
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 2480
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 2481
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 2482
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities, VESHE is up. The obvious 2483
R-SuperHyperConnectivities, VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , 2485
includes only all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of 2486
Neutrosophic pairs are titled Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 2487
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic 2488
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 2489
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 2490
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 2491
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 2492
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 2493
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities only contains all interior Neutrosophic 2494
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 2495
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 2496
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 2497
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 2498
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 2499
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2500
are coming up. 2502


SuperHyperVertices,



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


is only and only



the cardinality of
To sum them up, assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2511
ESHG : (V, E). Any Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities only contains all 2512
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic 2513
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any 2514
of them has all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all 2515
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Neutrosophic 2516
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 2517
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 2518
out. 2519
Remark 4.8. The words “ Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Neutrosophic 2520
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum Neutrosophic type-style. In other 2521
words, they refer to the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperNumber and the 2522
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet with the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. 2523
Proposition 4.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2524
ESHG : (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then a Neutrosophic 2525
SuperHyperConnectivities has the members poses only one Neutrosophic representative 2526
in a Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2527
Proof. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider 2528
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (4.7), the 2529
Neutrosophic results are up. Thus on a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2530
ESHG : (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then a 2531
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities has the members poses only one Neutrosophic 2532
representative in a Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2533
5 Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 2534
The previous Neutrosophic approaches apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 2535
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 2536
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 2537
Then a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities-style with the maximum 2538
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior 2539
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 2540
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 2541
Then a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic 2542
SuperHyperSet of the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no 2543
Neutrosophic exceptions in the form of interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 2544
the unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any interior Neutrosophic 2545
SuperHyperVertices from the Neutrosophic unique SuperHyperEdges. a Neutrosophic 2546
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic number of all the interior 2547
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Also, 2548
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

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

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

sometimes the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a

Is a quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is the
cardinality of

their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. 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 2549
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 2550
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 2551
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 2552
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 2553
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 2554
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 2555
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 2556
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities

decorates the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Neutrosophic
connections so as this Neutrosophic style implies different versions of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Neutrosophic bound is to
have the maximum Neutrosophic groups of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have
perfect Neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of
this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the
used Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its Neutrosophic properties taken
from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no
Neutrosophic connection. Furthermore, the Neutrosophic existence of one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has no Neutrosophic effect to talk about the Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
involve to make a title in the Neutrosophic background of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge but at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices make
the Neutrosophic version of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the Neutrosophic
setting of non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is
used as Neutrosophic adjective for the initial Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces
there’s no Neutrosophic appearance of the loop Neutrosophic version of the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is said to be
loopless. The Neutrosophic adjective “loop” on the basic Neutrosophic framework
engages one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it never happens in this Neutrosophic
setting. With these Neutrosophic bases, on a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s
at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least a Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the
Neutrosophic cardinality at least a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Assume a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities since either the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is an obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel thus it never happens
since there’s no Neutrosophic usage of this Neutrosophic framework and even more
there’s no Neutrosophic connection inside or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t
obvious and as its consequences, there’s a Neutrosophic contradiction with the term
“Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities” since the maximum Neutrosophic
cardinality never happens for this Neutrosophic style of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no Neutrosophic connection inside as mentioned
in first Neutrosophic case in the forms of drawback for this selected Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Let

SuperHypeSet

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

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

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

SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2563


V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 2574
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has two titles. 2624
a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities and its corresponded quasi-maximum 2625
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 2626
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities 2627
with that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 2628
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 2629
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 2630
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess for all 2631
Neutrosophic numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The 2632
essence of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities ends up but this essence starts 2633
up in the terms of the Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, again and more 2634
in the operations of collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess 2635
acted on the all possible used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to 2636
achieve one Neutrosophic number. This Neutrosophic number is 2637



And then, 2649



2651

2652

2653

up. 2668
terms are up. 2672

2673
2674
2675


2677

2678

2679

are coming up. 2687


SuperHyperVertices,



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

is only and only



the cardinality of
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 2702
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. There’s neither 2747
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 2748
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 2749
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The 2750
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 2751

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 2755
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 2756
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Neutrosophic 2758
SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 2759
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are not 2760
only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 2761
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is up. 2762
The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 2763
SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two 2764
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2765

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 2767
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 2768
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 2769

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 2772

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 2776
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 2777
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s an 2778
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t 2783
only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 2784
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2785

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperConnectivities, not: 2788

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 2789

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 2790
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 2791
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnectivities in the Example (5.3)

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.3. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2798
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 2799
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnectivities. 2800
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities 2801
ESHC : (V, E). Then a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a 2802
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only 2803
no Neutrosophic exceptions on the form of interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2804
from the same Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any Neutrosophic 2805
SuperHyperVertex. a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the 2806
Neutrosophic half number of all the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the 2807
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality. Also, 2808

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.





cardinality of

bound of


SuperHyperSet. Let
SuperHypeSet


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

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

SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2823

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



And then, 2909



2911

2912

2913

up. 2928
terms are up. 2932

2933
2934
2935


2937

2938

2939

are coming up. 2947


SuperHyperVertices,



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

is only and only



the cardinality of

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
.

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
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (5.5)

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.5. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic 3058
SuperHyperConnectivities N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained 3059
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the 3060
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. 3061
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 3062
Then a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic 3063
SuperHyperSet of the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to a 3064
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has 3065
the Neutrosophic number of the Neutrosophic cardinality of the one Neutrosophic 3066
SuperHyperEdge. Also, 3067

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X
= z |E|Neutrosophic Cardinality | E:∈EESHG:(V,E) .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 , . . . .

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z s + z t +, . . .





cardinality of

bound of


SuperHyperSet. Let
SuperHypeSet


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

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

SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3082

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



And then, 3168



3170

3171

3172

up. 3187
terms are up. 3191

3192
3193
3194


3196

3197

3198

are coming up. 3206


SuperHyperVertices,



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

is only and only



the cardinality of

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (5.7)

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

Example 5.7. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 3317
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 3318
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 3319
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 3320
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 3321
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 3323
ESHB : (V, E). Then a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic 3324
SuperHyperSet of the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with no Neutrosophic 3325
exceptions in the form of interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled Neutrosophic 3326
SuperHyperNeighbors. a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic 3327
maximum number of on Neutrosophic cardinality of the minimum SuperHyperPart 3328
minus those have common Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors and not unique 3329
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3330

min |PESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .





cardinality of

bound of


SuperHyperSet. Let
SuperHypeSet


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

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

SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3345

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



And then, 3431



3433

3434

3435

up. 3450
terms are up. 3454

3455
3456
3457


3459

3460

3461

are coming up. 3469


SuperHyperVertices,



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

is only and only



the cardinality of

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Figure 26. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the

Neutrosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Example (5.9)
Example 5.9. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 3580
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 3581
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 3582
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 3583
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 3584
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. 3585
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 3586
ESHM : (V, E). Then a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic 3587
SuperHyperSet of the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no 3588
Neutrosophic exception in the Neutrosophic form of interior Neutrosophic 3589
SuperHyperVertices from a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the 3590
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled 3591
“SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than some of them aren’t 3592
SuperHyperNeighbors to all. a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the 3593
Neutrosophic maximum number on all the Neutrosophic summation on the Neutrosophic 3594
cardinality of the all Neutrosophic SuperHyperParts form some SuperHyperEdges minus 3595
those make Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all or not unique. Also, 3596

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .






cardinality of

bound of

SuperHyperSet. Let
SuperHypeSet


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

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

SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3611

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


[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

And then, 3697



3699

3700

3701

up. 3716
terms are up. 3720

3721
3722
3723


3725

3726

3727

are coming up. 3735


SuperHyperVertices,



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

is only and only



the cardinality of

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.11. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 3846
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 3847
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 3848
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 3849
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 3850
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. 3851
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 3852
ESHW : (V, E). Then a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic 3853
SuperHyperSet of the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the 3854
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in the form of interior 3855
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 3856
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Example (5.11)
exclusion on Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them and not all. a 3857
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic maximum number on all 3858
the Neutrosophic number of all the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges don’t have common 3859
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3860

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.





cardinality of

bound of


SuperHyperSet. Let
SuperHypeSet


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

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


SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3875

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



And then, 3961



3963

3964

3965

up. 3980
terms are up. 3984

3985
3986
3987


3989

3990

3991

are coming up. 3999


SuperHyperVertices,




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

is only and only



the cardinality of

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
.

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
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example
(5.13)

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.13. In the Neutrosophic Figure (28), the connected Neutrosophic 4110
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 4111
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 4112
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 4113
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 4114
6 General Neutrosophic Results 4116
For the SuperHyperConnectivities, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, and the 4117
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, some general results are introduced. 4118
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is “redefined” 4119
on the positions of the alphabets. 4120
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4121
N eutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities =
{theSuperHyperConnectivitiesof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperConnectivities. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 4122
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 4123
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 4124
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 4125
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities and 4126
SuperHyperConnectivities coincide. 4127
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 4129
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if and only if it’s a SuperHyperConnectivities. 4130
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 4132
SuperHyperConnectivities if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperConnectivities. 4133
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 4134
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is 4135
its SuperHyperConnectivities and reversely. 4136
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, 4137
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 4138
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 4139
SuperHyperConnectivities is its SuperHyperConnectivities and reversely. 4140
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 4141
SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities 4142
isn’t well-defined. 4143
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 4144
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its 4145
SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined. 4146
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its 4149
SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined. 4150
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 4151
SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities is 4152
well-defined. 4153
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 4154
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined if and only if its 4155
SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined. 4156
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined if and only if its 4159
SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined. 4160
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 4161
is 4162
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4163
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4164
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4165
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4166
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4167
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4168
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 4169
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 4170
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 4171
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4172
statements are equivalent. 4173
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4174
following statements are equivalent. 4175
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4176
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4178
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4180
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are 4182
equivalent. 4183
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
4184
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 4185
∅ is 4186
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4187
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4188
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4189
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4190
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4191
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4192
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 4193
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 4194
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 4195
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4196
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4198
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4200
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4202
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4204
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4206
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
4208
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 4209
independent SuperHyperSet is 4210
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4211
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4212
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4213
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4214
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4215
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4216
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 4217
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 4218
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive 4220
SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are equivalent. 4221
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive 4222
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive 4224
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive 4226
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 4228
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 4230
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
4232
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 4233
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 4234
maximal 4235
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4236
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4237
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4238
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4239
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4240
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4241
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 4242
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4243
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. 4244
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 4245
SuperHyperConnectivities. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, 4246
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 4247
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 4248
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities, 4249
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 4250
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDefensive 4251
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities. 4252
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 4253
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. This 4254
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 4255
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 4256
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 4257
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 4260
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 4261
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive 4262
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 4263
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 4265
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4266
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 4267
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4268
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4269
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4270
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4271
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4272
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4273
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 4274
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 4275
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 4276
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By 4279
it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and 4280
it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 4281
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive 4283
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 4284
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4286
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 4287
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. Then the 4291
number of 4292
(i) : the SuperHyperConnectivities; 4293
(ii) : the SuperHyperConnectivities; 4294
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperConnectivities; 4295
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities; 4296
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities; 4297
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities. 4298
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4299
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 4300
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4301
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. 4302
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 4305
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 4306
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities, 4307
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities. 4310
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 4311
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. This 4312
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 4313
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 4314
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 4315
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 4318
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive 4320
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 4321
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 4325
(i) : the dual SuperHyperConnectivities; 4326
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperConnectivities; 4327
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperConnectivities; 4328
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities; 4329
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities; 4330
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities. 4331
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4332
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 4334
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 4335
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By 4338
it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and 4339
it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 4340
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual 4342
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform 4343
SuperHyperWheel. 4344
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4346
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 4347
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 4351
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 4352
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 4353
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 4354
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4358
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4359
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4360
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 4361
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 4362
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4363
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 4364
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4365
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperStar. 4366
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 4367
SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 4368
in S. 4369
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which 4371
isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4372
SuperHyperConnectivities and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 4374
or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 4375
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4376
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite 4378
which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 4379

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4381
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s O(ESHG) 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 4382
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 4387
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 4388
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 4389
is a 4390
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4394
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4395
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4396
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 4397
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 4398
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex 4399
has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, 4400
then 4401
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive 4402
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 4404
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 4405
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has no 4406
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 4407
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities 4408
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4409
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 4410
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 4411
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has no 4412
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 4413
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive 4414
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s an 4418
δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4419
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 4423
number of 4424
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4428
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4429
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4430
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 4431
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 4432
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4433
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 4436
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4437
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 4438
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 4442
in S. 4443
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which 4445
isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4446
SuperHyperConnectivities and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 4448
or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 4449
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s O(ESHG) 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 4456
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 4459
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 4460
(iv) : SuperHyperConnectivities; 4464
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4465
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4466
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4467
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. These SuperHyperVertex-type have 4468
some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 4469
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperConnectivities and number of connected component is |V − S|. 4471
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s a 4473
dual 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4474
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 4476
number is 4477
at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is 4478
at most On (ESHG). 4479
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 4480
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 4481
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 4482
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4483
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4485
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4487
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4489
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4491
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4493
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and V is the biggest 4495
SuperHyperSet in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is 4496
at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is 4497
at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 4498
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 4499
SuperHyperComplete. The number is 4500

O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 4501
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 4502
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4506
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4508
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4509
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 4510
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 4513
number is 4514
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 4516
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4517
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4518
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive 4521
number is 4523
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 4525
t>
2
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4527
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 4530
number is 4532
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 4534
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4536
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 4539
number is 4541
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4545
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong 4548
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities in a given 4549
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4550

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 4552
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4554
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected 4557
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities in a given 4558
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4559

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 4561
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
∅. The number is 4564
0 and the Neutrosophic number is 4565
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 4566
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4570
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4571
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4572
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 4573
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 4574
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4576
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4578
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4580
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4582
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4584
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 4586
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4588
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4590
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 4592
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4594
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is 4596
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive 4598
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4600
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is 4602
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 4604
0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4605
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4606
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is 4608
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive 4610
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 4613
SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 4615
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is 4616
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 4617
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4621
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4622
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4623
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 4624
SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 4625
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4626
SuperHyperConnectivities. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, 4627
i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperConnectivities, 4628
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4629
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4630
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperConnectivities. 4631
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4632
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 4634
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4635
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperPath. 4637
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4638
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 4640
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4641
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperWheel. 4643
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4645
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 4646
Thus the number is 4649
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is 4650
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4651
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 4654
number is 4655
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n 4665
half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, 4666
then 4667
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 4668
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 4671
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 4674
SuperHyperStar. 4675
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 4676
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and they are chosen from different 4677
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 4678
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4679
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither 4681
a SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 4682

O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4684
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 4685
Thus the number is 4688

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 4690
t>
2
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 4692
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 4693
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 4694
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 4695
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 4696
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 4697
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are 4698
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 4699
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 4700
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 4701
such that 4702
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 4703
(ii) vx ∈ E. 4704
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 4705
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, 4706
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x).
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 4707
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, 4708
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x).
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
4709
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 4710
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then 4711
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 4712
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 4713
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, 4715
either 4716
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
or 4717
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
It implies S is SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperSet. 4718
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, either 4720
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
or 4721
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 4722
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 4723
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 4724
number. 4725
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 4726
Then 4727
(i) Γ ≤ O; 4728
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 4729
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4730
S = V. 4731
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all 4732
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 4733
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 4734
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 4735
S, Γ ≤ O. 4736
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4737
S = V. 4738
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all 4739
SuperHyperSets of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 4740
SuperHyperSets of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4741
S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of Neutrosophic 4742
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of 4743
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 4744
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4745
which is connected. Then 4746
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 4747
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4748
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4749
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4750
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all 4751
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4752
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 4753
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 4754
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 4755
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4756
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4757
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all 4758
SuperHyperSets of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S = 6 V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4759
SuperHyperSets of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4760
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 4761
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 4762
SuperHyperSets of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4763
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 4764
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4765
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4767
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4768
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4769
a dual SuperHyperConnectivities. 4770
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 4771
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4772
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4773
SuperHyperConnectivities. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where 4774
vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4775
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual 4776
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a 4777
dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4778
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 4779
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4780
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a 4781
dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an 4782
odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4783
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4784
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4787
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 4791
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4792
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 4794
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 4795
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4796
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4797
dual SuperHyperConnectivities. 4798
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 4799
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4800
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4801
SuperHyperConnectivities. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, 4802
then 4803
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4804
SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 4805
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4808
even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4811
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4815
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4819
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4820
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 4822
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4823
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 4824
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4825
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperConnectivities. Let 4827
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4828
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4829
SuperHyperConnectivities. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, 4830
then 4831
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4832
SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 4833
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4836
even SuperHyperConnectivities. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4839
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4843
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4847
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4848
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4850
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4851
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4852
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Let 4854
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4855
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4858
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4863
odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4866
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4870
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 4874
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperConnectivities; 4875
(ii) Γ = 1; 4876
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 4877
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperConnectivities. 4878
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4879
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If 4880
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4881
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. It 4882
induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4883
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4885
Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4886
SuperHyperConnectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4887
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4888
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 4889
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 4890
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4891
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 4892
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 4893
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 4894
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4895
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 4896

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 4897
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 4898
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 3 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
6+3(i−1)≤n
It implies S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 4899
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If 4900

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 4901
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 4902
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
or 4903
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
6+3(i−1)≤n
So S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 4904
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4905
6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 4906
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4907
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 4908
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 4909
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 4912
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 4913
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4914
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 4916

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 4917
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If 4918
n
0 b c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
, then 4919
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4920
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4921
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 4924
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 4927
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 4928
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4929
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4931
Thus 4932
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If 4933
n
0 b2c bn
2c
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4934
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 4936
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 4939
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 4940
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4941
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF; 4942
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 4943
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 4944
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 4945
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). 4946
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4947
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4948
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4949
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for 4950
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 4951
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). 4952
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4954
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is 4955
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose 4956
ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4957
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for 4958
N SHF : (V, E). 4959
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 4960
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4961
SuperHyperSet. Then 4962
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4963
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF; 4964
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 4965
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4966
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 4967
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). 4968
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 4969
Thus 4970
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for 4971
bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4972
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 4974
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). 4975
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 4977
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4978
SuperHyperSet. Then 4979
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4980
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E); 4981
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 4982
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 4983
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperConnectivities 4984
for N SHF : (V, E). 4985
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 4986
Thus 4987
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for 4988
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4989
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 4991
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). 4992
Then following statements hold; 4995
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4996
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is an 4997
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4998
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4999
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is a dual 5000
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5001
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 5003
SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 5004
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5005
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 5007
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5009
Then following statements hold; 5011
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 5012
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is an 5013
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities; 5014
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 5015
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is a dual 5016
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities. 5017
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 5019
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. By S is an 5021
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and S is a dual 5022
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 5023
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 5026
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. By S is an 5028
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and S is a dual 5029
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 5030
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 5032
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 5033
statements hold; 5034
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 5037
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 5039
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 5041
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5042
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic 5043
SuperHyperGraph. Then 5044
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1) < 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5045
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic 5046
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5048
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic 5049
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5051
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic 5052
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5054
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 5055
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 5056
statements hold; 5057
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 5060
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 5062
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 5064
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5065
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 5069
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5071
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 5073
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
5074
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 5076
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 5077
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 5080
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 5082
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5085
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 5087
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 5089
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5091
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 5093
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
5094
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 5096
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 5097
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 5100
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 5102
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 5103
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5105
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 5107
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5114
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5117
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 5119
SuperHyperConnectivities. Then following statements hold; 5120
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5121
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5123
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5125
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 5130
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5132
Then 5133
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5135
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 5137
Then 5138
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
5139
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 5141
SuperHyperConnectivities. Then following statements hold; 5142
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5143
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 5145
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5147
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 5152
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

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

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

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

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 5163
Neutrosophic Recognition 5164
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 5165
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 5166
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 5167
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 5168
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 5169
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 5170
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 5171
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperConnectivities
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 5172
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 5173
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 5174
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 5175
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 5176
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 5177
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 5178
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 5179
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 5180
happened and what’s done. 5181
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 5182
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 5183
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 5184
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 5185
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, 5186
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 5187
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities or the Neutrosophic 5188
SuperHyperConnectivities in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 5189
SuperHyperModels. 5190
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 5191
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 5192
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 5193
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 5194
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 5195
featured. 5196
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
Figure 30. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 5197
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 5198
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 5199
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 5200
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 5201
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 5203
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 5204
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 5205
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 5206
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 5207
Neutrosophic featured. 5208
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 5209
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 5210
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 5211
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 5212
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 5213
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Open Problems 5215
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 5216
The SuperHyperConnectivities and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities are 5217
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 5218
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 5219
recognitions? 5220
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 5221
SuperHyperConnectivities and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities? 5222
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 5223
compute them? 5224
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 5225
SuperHyperConnectivities and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities? 5226
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperConnectivities and the Neutrosophic 5227
SuperHyperConnectivities do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 5228
they’re based on SuperHyperConnectivities, are there else? 5229
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 5230
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 5231
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 5232
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 5233
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 5234
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 5235
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 5236
highlighted. 5237
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 5238
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 5239
SuperHyperConnectivities. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 5240
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based 5241
on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 5242
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, finds the convenient 5243
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 5244
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 5245
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 5246
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 5247
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperConnectivities, the new SuperHyperClasses and 5248
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 5249
the SuperHyperConnectivities and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The 5250
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 5251
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 5252
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 5253
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 5254
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 5255
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 5256
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 5257
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 5258
formally called “ SuperHyperConnectivities” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 5259
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 5260
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperConnectivities
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
5261
advantages of this research are pointed out. 5262
References 5263
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 5264
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 5265
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 5266
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 5267
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 5268
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 5269
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 5270
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 5271
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 5272
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 5273
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 5274
(2022) 242-263. 5275
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 5276
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 5277
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 5278
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 5279
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 5280
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 5281
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 5282
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 5283
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 5284
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 5285
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 5286
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 5287
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 5288
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 5289
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 5290
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 5291
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 5292
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 5293
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 5294
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 5295
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 5296
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 5297
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 5298
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 5299
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 5300
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 5301
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 5302
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 5303
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 5304
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 5305
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 5306
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 5307
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 5308
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 5309
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 5310
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 5311
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 5312
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 5313
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 5314
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 5315
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 5316
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 5317
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 5318
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 5319
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 5320
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 5321
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 5322
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 5323
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 5324
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 5325
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 5326
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 5327
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 5328
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 5329
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 5330
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 5331
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 5332
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 5334
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 5335
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 5336
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 5337
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 5338
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 5339
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 5340
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 5341
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 5342
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 5343
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 5344
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 5345
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 5346
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 5347
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 5348
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 5349
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 5350
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 5351
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 5352
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 5353
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 5354
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 5355
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 5356
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 5357
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 5358
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 5359
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 5360
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 5361
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 5362
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 5363
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 5364
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 5365
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 5366
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 5367
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 5368
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 5369
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 5370
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 5371
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 5372
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 5374
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 5375
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 5376
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 5377
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 5378
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 5379
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 5380
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 5381
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 5382
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 5383
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 5386
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 5387
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 5388
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 5389
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 5390
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 5391
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 5392
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 5393
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 5394
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 5395
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 5396
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 5397
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 5398
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 5399
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 5400
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 5401
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 5402
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 5403
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 5404
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 5405
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 5406
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 5407
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 5408
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 5409
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 5410
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 5411
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 5412
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 5413
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 5414
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 5415
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 5416
View publication stats

Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super Mechanism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super Mechanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · February 2023

279 PUBLICATIONS 2,640 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper 3

Diagnosis On Super Mechanism 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7

In this research, [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] Assume

have Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; Neutrosophic i-strength 9

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 12

(NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 13

(NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ 14

maximum number of Neutrosophic t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from 15

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 16

(NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of 17

Neutrosophic i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 18

SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 19

1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 20

f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 21

Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Neutrosophic 22

connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic strength of 23

SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to 24

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. ((Neutrosophic) 25

SuperHyperConnectivities). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 26

an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 27

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s 28

either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic 29

f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 30

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 31

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 32

consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 33

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; a 34

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, 35

Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and 36

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 37

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 38

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 39

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 40

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 41

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic 42

an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 44

Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 46

of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 47

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and 48

the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 49

SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 50

t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic 51

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 53

the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 54

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 55

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 56

is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities 58

if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic 59

f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 60

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 61

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 62

consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 63

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; a 64