Failed SuperHyperClique

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA

Abstract
In this research book, there are two research chapters “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique” and 1
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” about some researches on Extreme Failed SuperHyper- 2
Clique and neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique . With researches on the basic properties, the 3
research book starts to make Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory and neutrosophic Failed 4
SuperHyperClique theory more understandable. 5
6
In the first chapter, in this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, 7
namely, a Failed SuperHyperClique and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique . Two different 8
types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the Supe- 9
rHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 10
well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the 11
elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with 12
other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are 13
followed by the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 14
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 15
“Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing 16
and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are 17
different types of them. Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the 18
group of cells. These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them 19
all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic 20
SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. Thus these 21
complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments 22
and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially 23
collected in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a 24
“Failed SuperHyperClique” C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 25
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyper- 26
Vertex not to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed 27

SuperHyperClique” is a maximal Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 28
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 29
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. 30
The first Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 31
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a 32
maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic 33
i
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalit- 34
ies of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + 35
δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a 36
“neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic 37
δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperClique 38
. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperClique more understand- 39
able. For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” 40
the notion of a “Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 41
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 42
the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Failed SuperHyperClique . It’s redefined a 43
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of 44
Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 45
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position 46
in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 47
Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 48
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values 49
of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next 50
SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a Failed SuperHyperClique . It’s the main. It’ll be 51
disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s 52
a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperClique, then it’s officially 53
called a “Failed SuperHyperClique” but otherwise, it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperClique . There are 54
some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “Failed SuperHyperClique 55
”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 56
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a Failed SuperHyperClique . For the sake 57
of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 58

“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” and a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The 59
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the 60
alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 61
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 62
intended Table holds. And a Failed SuperHyperClique are redefined to a “neutrosophic Failed 63
SuperHyperClique” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of 64
SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic 65
Failed SuperHyperClique more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There 66
are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 67
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHy- 68
perWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 69

SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, 70
and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 71
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value 72
from all the Failed SuperHyperClique amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from 73
a Failed SuperHyperClique .] Failed SuperHyperClique . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s 74
a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a 75
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 76
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 77
it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; 78
it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 79

SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges 80
and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 81
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges 82
and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 83
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and 84
one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 85
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 86
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” 87
cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common 88
and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled 89
as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, 90
and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel 91
is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s 92
Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The 93
recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the 94
model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by 95
this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 96
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 97
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] 98
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, 99
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. 100
The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 101
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 102
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 103
longest Failed SuperHyperClique or the strongest Failed SuperHyperClique in those neutrosophic 104
SuperHyperModels. For the longest Failed SuperHyperClique, called Failed SuperHyperClique, and 105
the strongest Failed SuperHyperClique, called neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, some general 106
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two 107
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges 108
to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but 109
literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A 110
basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are 111
proposed. 112
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique, Cancer’s Recognition 113
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 114

115
In the second chapter, in this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, 116
namely, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique . Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are 117
debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and 118
SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is imple- 119
mented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, 120
the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 121
SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the instances 122
thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are figured out to make sense 123
about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” are 124

the under research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. 125
The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. 126
Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 127
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called 128
“SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are 129
chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Thus these complex and 130
dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s 131
Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially col- 132
lected in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 133
Then a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” Cn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 134
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 135
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to have 136
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed 137

SuperHyperClique” is a maximal Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 138
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 139
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. 140
The first Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 141
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a 142
maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic 143

cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 144
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ 145
N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a “neut- 146
rosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic 147
δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of Failed SuperHyperClique . 148
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make Failed SuperHyperClique more understandable. 149
For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion 150
of “Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by 151
the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of 152
labels to assign to the values. Assume a Failed SuperHyperClique . It’s redefined neutrosophic Failed 153
SuperHyperClique if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, 154
Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with 155
the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values 156
of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The 157
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of 158
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. 159
To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 160
SuperHyperGraph based on Failed SuperHyperClique . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have 161
the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have 162
all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperClique, then it’s officially called “Failed 163
SuperHyperClique” but otherwise, it isn’t Failed SuperHyperClique . There are some instances 164
about the clarifications for the main definition titled “Failed SuperHyperClique ”. These two 165
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of 166
the SuperHyperClass based on Failed SuperHyperClique . For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed 167
SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” 168
and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 169
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 170

position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 171
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And Failed SuperHyperClique are 172
redefined “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to 173
define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic 174
type-results to make neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique more understandable. Assume a 175
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 176
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 177

SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutro- 178
sophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, 179
“neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 180
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” where it’s the strongest 181
[the maximum neutrosophic value from all Failed SuperHyperClique amid the maximum value amid 182
all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperClique .] Failed SuperHyperClique . A graph is 183

SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are 184
the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. 185
It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges 186
with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 187
given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 188
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 189
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 190
in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 191
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 192
in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 193
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. 194
The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHy- 195
perModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 196
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 197
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific 198
group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 199
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which 200
in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 201
will be based on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the definitions will 202
be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the long-term 203
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] 204
and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 205
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 206
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads 207
us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient 208
perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are 209
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The 210
moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 211


literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A 220
basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are 221
proposed. 222
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, Cancer’s 223
Neutrosophic Recognition 224

226
The following references are cited by chapters. 227
228
[Ref1] Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Can- 229
cer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named 230
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 231

232
[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front 233
of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition 234
called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 235
236
The links to the contributions of this research book are listed below. 237
Article #116 238

239
Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s Recognition in the 240
Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyper- 241
Graphs 242
243
@WordPress: - 244
245
@Preprints_org: - 246
247
@ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366982829 248
249
@Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/619028214 250
251
@academia: https://www.academia.edu/94735560 252
253
@ZENODO_ORG: https://zenodo.org/record/7523370 Article #117 254
255
Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The 256
Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 257
SuperHyperGraphs 258
259
@WordPress: - 260
261

263
265
267
269
@ZENODO_ORG: https://zenodo.org/record/7523374 270
271
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in the follow- 272
ing by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more than 2479 readers in 273
Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational 274
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book 275
covers different types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 276
SuperHyperGraph theory. 277
278
[Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: Educational 279
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-725-6 280
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 281
282
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in the 283
following by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more than 3192 read- 284
ers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE 285

- Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book 286
presents different types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting 287
of duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 288
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, simultaneously. It’s 289
smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s done in this research book which is 290
popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. [Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, 291
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 292
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 (http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 293
Background 294
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are some 295
discussion and literature reviews about them. 296

First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in 297

Ref. [HG1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the research on neutrosophic Super- 298
HyperGraphs. This research article is published on the journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” 299
in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this research article, different types of notions like dom- 300
inating, resolving, coloring, Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) 301
neutrosophic path, zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 302
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, matching number, 303
matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing 304
neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- 305
offensive alliance, t-offensive alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful 306
alliance are defined in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 307
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some results are 308
applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus this research 309
article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the majority of notions. 310
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic 311
degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic hyper- 312
graphs” in Ref. [HG2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research article, a novel approach is 313
implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms 314

without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious 315
and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” 316
with abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. The 317
research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 318
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background. 319
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper 320

Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutro- 321
sophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [HG3] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research article, a 322
novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based 323
on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic 324
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathemat- 325
ical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math Techniques 326
Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article studies deeply with 327
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough 328
toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 329
In some articles are titled “0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving 330
and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. 331
[HG4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 332
in Ref. [HG5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 333

Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG6] by Henry Garrett (2022), 334
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act 335
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [HG7] by Henry Garrett 336
(2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutro- 337
sophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [HG8] 338
by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 339
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [HG9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 340

(2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyper- 343
Modeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG11] by 344
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring 345
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [HG12] by Henry Garrett 346

(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive 347
Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModel- 348
ing of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [HG13] by 349
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 350
With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [HG14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 351
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and 352

SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [HG15] by Henry Gar- 353
rett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 354
And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [HG16] by 355
Henry Garrett (2022), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 356
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG17] 357
by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions 358
and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 359
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [HG18] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different 360
Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Can- 361
cer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. 362
[HG19] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 363
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG20] 364

by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 365
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. 366
[HG21] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 367
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG22] by Henry Garrett 368

sophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [HG23] by 370
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 371
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 372
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recogni- 373
tions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG25] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 374
Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving 375

in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [HG26] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic 376
Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 377
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [HG27] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are 378
some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 379

and SuperHyperGraph. 380

Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in Ref. [HG28] 381
by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more than 2347 readers in 382
Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educa- 383
tional Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research 384
book covers different types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 385
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in Ref. [HG29] 387
Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - 389
Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book 390
smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s done in this research book which 394
is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 395

Bibliography 396
[1] Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyper- 397

Graph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 10.5281/zen- 398
odo.6456413). (http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). (ht- 399

tps://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss_journal/vol49/iss1/34). 400
[2] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic 401
Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends 402
Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 403
[3] Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super 404
Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, 405
J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) (2022) 242-263. 406
[4] Garrett, Henry. “0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving 407
and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” 408

CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN 409
European Organization for Nuclear Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. ht- 410
tps://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 411
[5] Garrett, Henry. “0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs.” CERN 412
European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 2022. CERN European 413
Organization for Nuclear Research, https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. ht- 414
tps://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 415
[6] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions 416

And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/pre- 417
prints202301.0105.v1). 418
[7] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic Super- 419
HyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 420
2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 421
[8] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To 422

Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, 423
Preprints 2023, 2023010044 424
xiii
[9] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- Su- 425
perHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010043 (doi: 426
10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 427
[10] Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 428
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 429
Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 430
2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 433
[12] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring 434
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2022, 2022120549 (doi: 435

10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 436
[13] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and Super- 437
HyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) 438
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 439
[14] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 441

With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 442
10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 443
[15] Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 444

SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, 445
[16] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic Super- 447

HyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, 448
[17] Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition For- 450
warding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 451

2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30092.80004). 452
[18] Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and Sub- 453
Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With 454
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 455
[19] Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic Failed 456
SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic 457
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 458
[20] Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyper- 459
Model Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 460
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 461

[21] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHy- 462
perStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 463
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 464
[22] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 465
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 466

10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 467

ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 470
[24] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 471
[26] Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 476
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 477
10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 478
[27] Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic 479
Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 480
(NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 481
[28] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: Educational 482
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States. ISBN: 979-1- 483
59973-725-6 (http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 484
[29] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing 485
House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 486
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 487
[30] F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to Plithogenic n- 488
SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary (Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) Hyper- 489

Algebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 (2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 490
[31] M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. Eng. Math. 8 (1) 491
(2018) 122-135. 492
[32] S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 (2016) 86-101. 493
[33] H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and Multistructure 4 (2010) 494
410-413. 495
[34] H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 496

– 497
498
#Latest_Updates 499
500
#The_Links 501
502
| Book #68 503

504
|Title: Failed SuperHyperClique 505
506
| Available at Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd, Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn, and Amazon 507
508
– 509
510
| Publisher | – 511
512
| ISBN | – 513
514
#Latest_Updates 515
516
#The_Links 517
518
| @ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366991079 519
520
| @Scribd: - 521
522
| @academia: - 523
524
| @ZENODO_ORG: - 525
526
| @WordPress: - 527
528
529

Failed SuperHyperClique (Published Version) 530

531
The Link: 532
533
- 534
535
– 536
537
Posted by Dr. Henry Garrett 538
539
January -, 2023 540
541
Posted in 0068| Failed SuperHyperClique 542
543
Tags: 544
Applications, Applied Mathematics, Applied Research, Cancer, Cancer’s Recognition, Combinatorics, 545
Edge, Edges, Failed SuperHyperClique, Graph Theory, Graphs, Latest Research, Literature Reviews, 546
Modeling, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, Neutrosophic Graph, Neutrosophic Graph 547
Theory, Neutrosophic Science, Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses, Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, 548

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Theory, neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs, Open Problems, Open 549
Questions, Problems, Pure Math, Pure Mathematics, Questions, Real-World Applications, Recent 550
Research, Recognition, Research, Research Article, Research Articles, Research Book, Research 551
Chapter, Research Chapters, Review, SuperHyperClasses, SuperHyperEdges, SuperHyperGraph, Su- 552
perHyperGraph Theory, SuperHyperGraphs, SuperHyperModeling, SuperHyperVertices, Theoretical 553
Research, Vertex, Vertices 554

Acknowledgements 555
The author is going to express his gratitude and his appreciation about the brains and their hands 556
which are showing the importance of words in the framework of every wisdom, knowledge, arts, and 557
emotions which are streaming in the lines from the words, notions, ideas and approaches to have 558
the material and the contents which are only the way to flourish the minds, to grow the notions, to 559
advance the ways and to make the stable ways to be amid events and storms of minds for surviving 560
from them and making the outstanding experiences about the tools and the ideas to be on the star 561
lines of words and shining like stars, forever. 562
xix
Contents 563
Abstract i 564
Bibliography xiii 565
Acknowledgements xix 566
Contents xxi 567
List of Figures xxiii 568
List of Tables xxvii 569
1 Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1 570
2 - 3 571
3 Abstarct 5 572
4 Background 9 573
5 Motivation and Contributions 13 574
6 Preliminaries 17 575
7 Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 27 576
8 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 87 577
9 General Extreme Results 141 578
10 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme Recognition 185 579
11 Case 1: The Initial extreme Steps Toward extreme SuperHyperBipartite as 580
extreme SuperHyperModel 187 581
xxi
12 Case 2: The Increasing extreme Steps Toward extreme SuperHyperMulti- 582

partite as extreme SuperHyperModel 189 583
13 Open Problems 191 584
14 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 193 585
Bibliography 195 586
15 Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 199 587
16 Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s 588

Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 589
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 201 590
17 Abstract 203 591
18 Background 207 592
19 Motivation and Contributions 211 593
20 Preliminaries 215 594
21 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 225 595
22 Results on neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 287 596
23 General neutrosophic Results 349 597
24 neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s neutrosophic Recognition 393 598
25 Case 1: The Initial neutrosophic Steps Toward neutrosophic SuperHyper- 599

Bipartite as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 395 600
26 Case 2: The Increasing neutrosophic Steps Toward neutrosophic SuperHy- 601

perMultipartite as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 397 602
27 Open Problems 399 603
28 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 401 604
Bibliography 403 605
29 Books’ Contributions 407 606
30 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets 411 607
31 CV 439 608

List of Figures 609
7.1 The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperClique in the 610
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 611
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 613
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 615
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 617
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 619
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 621
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 623
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 625
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 627
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 629
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 631
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 633
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 635
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 637
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 639
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 641
xxiii
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 643
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 645
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 647
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 649
8.1 An extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of extreme Failed SuperHyper- 650
Clique in the Example (8.0.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 651
8.2 An extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme Failed 652
SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (8.0.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 653
8.3 An extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme Failed 654
SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (8.0.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 655
8.4 An extreme SuperHyperBipartite extreme Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme 656
Failed SuperHyperClique in the Example (8.0.9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 657
8.5 An extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme Failed 658

SuperHyperClique in the Example (8.0.11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 659
8.6 An extreme SuperHyperWheel extreme Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme 660
Failed SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (8.0.13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 661
11.1 An extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme Failed 662

SuperHyperClique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 663
12.1 An extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme Failed 664

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 667
Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 669
Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 671
Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 673
Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 675
Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 677
Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 679
Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 681
Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 683

21.10The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperClique in the 684

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 685

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 687

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 689
Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 691

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 693

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 695

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 697

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 699

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 701

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 703

Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 705
22.1 a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 706

22.2 a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of neutrosophic 708

Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (22.0.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 709
22.3 a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of neutrosophic 710

Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (22.0.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 711
22.4 a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite neutrosophic Associated to the neutrosophic 712

Notions of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the Example (22.0.9) . . . . . . . 327 713
22.5 a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 714
22.6 a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel neutrosophic Associated to the neutrosophic Notions 716

of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (22.0.13) . . . 347 717
25.1 a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 718

26.1 a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 720

30.1 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 722
30.2 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 723
30.3 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets #69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 724


30.10“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets #67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 731




List of Tables 751
6.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges 752
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition (6.0.24) . 24 753

Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (6.0.23) . 24 755
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 759
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 761
14.1 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research . . . . . . . . . 194 762
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (20.0.23) 222 766
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 770
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 772
28.1 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research . . . . . . . . . 402 773
xxvii
CHAPTER 1 774
Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 775
The following sections are cited as follows, which is my 116th manuscript and I use prefix 116 as 776
number before any labelling for items. 777
778
[Ref1] Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Can- 779
cer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named 780
782
The links to the contributions of this research chapter are listed below. 783
Article #116 784

785
Graphs 788
789
@WordPress: - 790
791
793
795

797
799
1
CHAPTER 2 801
- 802
3
CHAPTER 3 803
Abstarct 804
in this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a Failed SuperHyper- 805
Clique and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique . Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 806
are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, 807
and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review 808
is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of 809
this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 810
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and 811
the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are figured out 812
to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are 813
chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense Super- 819
HyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. 820
Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some 821
questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperClique” 822
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 823
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a Super- 824
HyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is 825

a maximal Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that 826
either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeigh- 827
bors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 828
Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 829
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a maximal neutrosophic 830
Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that 831
either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 832
s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ 833
N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. 834
And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. The SuperHy- 835
perNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor 836
loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is 837
5
the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. S The extreme 838
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 839
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVer- 840
tices, S is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 841
ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality 842
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme 843
SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique 844

is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, S{z}. There’s not only three 845
extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 846
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 847
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme Supe- 848
rHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S doesn’t have less 849
than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 850
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, 851
the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S is the non-obvious simple extreme 852
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of 853
the extreme SuperHyperVertices, S is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme 854
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices 855
such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by 856
that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme 857
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme Su- 858
perHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for 859
some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the ex- 860
treme Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside 861
the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, S Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, S 862
is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, 863
not: S is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices 864
in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 865
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 866
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” 867
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 868
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, 869
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated 870
SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious 871
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious 872
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are S. In a connected 873
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is 874
featured On the Figures. It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperClique . 875
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperClique more understandable. 876
For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the 877
notion of a “Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 878
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 879
position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Failed SuperHyperClique . It’s redefined a 880
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of 881

Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 882
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 883
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of 884
The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum 885
Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. 886
To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 887
SuperHyperGraph based on a Failed SuperHyperClique . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to 888
have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 889
have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperClique, then it’s officially called a 890
“Failed SuperHyperClique” but otherwise, it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperClique . There are some 891
instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “Failed SuperHyperClique ”. These 892
two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary 893
ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a Failed SuperHyperClique . For the sake of having a 894
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic 895
Failed SuperHyperClique” and a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices 896
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 897
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic 898
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. 899
And a Failed SuperHyperClique are redefined to a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” if the 900
intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since 901
there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 902
more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic 903
SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, 904
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 905
“neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, 906

“neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 907
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic Failed 908
SuperHyperClique” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the 909
Failed SuperHyperClique amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed 910
SuperHyperClique .] Failed SuperHyperClique . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 911
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a 912

Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition 930
of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s 931
called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 932
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 933
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 934
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have 935
convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which 936
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The 937

literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 947
A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are 948
proposed. 949

CHAPTER 4 952
Background 953


9


“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and Su- 1011

perHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [HG15] by Henry Garrett 1012
(2022), “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And 1013
Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [HG16] by Henry 1014
Garrett (2022), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forward- 1015
ing Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG17] 1016
by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and 1017
Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With 1018
(Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [HG18] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different 1019





CHAPTER 5 1055
Motivation and Contributions 1056
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try to bring the 1057
motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some attacks from the situation 1058
which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing 1059
situations which in that, the cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals 1060
have excessive labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In 1061
the embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 1062
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more proper analysis 1063
on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” 1064
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of 1065
cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” and the relations between the individuals of cells and 1066
the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do 1067
research on this SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations 1068
get worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond them. 1069
There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality, for 1070
any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise data, and uncertain analysis. 1071
The latter model could be considered on the previous SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. 1072
It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is 1073
the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case 1074
of this disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The 1075
cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter 1076
of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease. The 1077
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s 1078
Recognition” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been 1079
happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 1080
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of 1081
the cancer in the forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1082
formally called “ Failed SuperHyperClique” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 1083
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the 1084
SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region 1085
has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from 1086
the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 1087
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of 1088
the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 1089
13
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are 1090
some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general models. 1091
The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups 1092
of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, 1093
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is 1094
to find either the optimal Failed SuperHyperClique or the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 1095
in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 1096
SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but 1097
it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of 1098
a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the 1099
deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 1100
Question 5.0.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to find the “ 1101
amount of Failed SuperHyperClique” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells based on the 1102
fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of Failed SuperHyperClique” based on 1103
the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 1104
Question 5.0.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms of these 1105
messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 1106
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled “SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus 1107
it motivates us to define different types of “ Failed SuperHyperClique” and “neutrosophic Failed 1108
SuperHyperClique” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the 1109
research has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections 1110
amid this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances 1111
and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and 1112
some results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 1113
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 1114
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic definitions to clarify 1115
about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial definitions about SuperHyperGraphs 1116
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary 1117
concepts are clarified and illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to 1118
make sense about what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions 1119
and their clarifications alongside some results about new notions, Failed SuperHyperClique and 1120
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are figured out in sections “ Failed SuperHyperClique” and 1121
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order 1122
to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 1123
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are 1124
figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results 1125
on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart 1126
steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph 1127
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 1128
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and 1129
as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General 1130
Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as 1131
fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ Failed 1132
SuperHyperClique”, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 1133
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s done about 1134

the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and going to figure out 1135
the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ Failed 1136
SuperHyperClique”. The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s 1137
Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 1138
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as 1139
SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on 1140
what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to 1141
make sense to figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 1142
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s 1143
figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 1144

CHAPTER 6 1145
Preliminaries 1146
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, the new 1147
ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 1148
Definition 6.0.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[2],Definition 2.1,p.87).

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 ]− 0, 1 [. 1149
Definition 6.0.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[5],Definition 6,p.2).

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 6.0.3. 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 6.0.4. 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}.
17
Definition 6.0.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref.[4],Definition 3,p.291). 1150

Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair 1151
S = (V, E), where 1152
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 1153
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1154
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 1155
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1156
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1157
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1158
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1159
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ); 1160
0
(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 . 1161
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1162
(NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of 1163
truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership 1164
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 1165
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy- 1166
membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 1167
to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix 1168
of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets 1169
V and E are crisp sets. 1170
Definition 6.0.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 1171

(Ref.[4],Section 4,pp.291-292). 1172
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). The neutrosophic 1173
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic 1174
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be characterized as follow-up items. 1175
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 1176
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 1177
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 1178
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called HyperEdge; 1179

(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called SuperEdge; 1180
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 1181
SuperHyperEdge. 1182
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse types of 1183
general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 1184
Definition 6.0.7 (t-norm). (Ref.[3], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 1185
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1]×[0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 1186
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 1187
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 1188
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 1189
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 1190
Definition 6.0.8. 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 .
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
Definition 6.0.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 1191

S = (V, E), where 1193
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1198
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1199
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1200
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ). 1201
0


(Ref.[4],Section 4,pp.291-292). 1212
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have some restrictions 1223
and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns 1224
and regularities. 1225
Definition 6.0.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of 1226
elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 1227
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to have more 1228
understandable. 1229
Definition 6.0.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses 1230
as follows. 1231
(i). It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 1232
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 1233
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 1234
SuperHyperEdges; 1235
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; 1236
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 1237
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 1238
in common; 1239

(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 1240
in common; 1242
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 1243
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 1244
SuperVertex. 1245
Definition 6.0.14. 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 neutrosophic 1246
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either of following 1247
conditions hold: 1248
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1249
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1250
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1251
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1252
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ E i0 ; 1253
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1254
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1255
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1256
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , Vi+1
0
∈ Ei0 . 1257
Definition 6.0.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s).

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 ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 1258
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 1259
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 1260
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 1261
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1262
. 1263

Definition 6.0.16. ((neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique). 1264

Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 1265
(i) an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 1266
N SHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1267
with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the ex- 1268
treme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges 1269
amid an amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyper- 1270
Set of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an extreme (z, −)−Failed Supe- 1271
rHyperClique extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme Super- 1272
HyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Su- 1273
perHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyper- 1274

Set S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z extreme SuperHyperEdge 1275
amid an amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet 1276
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an extreme (−, x)−Failed SuperHy- 1277
perClique extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyper- 1278
Graph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHy- 1279
perVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S 1280

of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of extreme SuperHy- 1281
perEdges amid x extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet of 1282
the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an extreme (z, x)−Failed SuperHyper- 1283
Clique extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 1284
N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1285
with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme 1286
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z extreme SuperHyperEdges amid x extreme Supe- 1287
rHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; 1288
it’s also the extreme extension of the extreme notion of the extreme clique in the extreme 1289
graphs to the extreme SuperHyperNotion of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique in the 1290
extreme SuperHyperGraphs where in the extreme setting of the graphs, there’s an extreme 1291
(1, 2)−Failed SuperHyperClique since an extreme graph is an extreme SuperHyperGraph; 1292
(ii) an neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1293
Graph N SHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1294
Vertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1295
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of neutrosophic Super- 1296
HyperEdges amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic 1297
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an neutrosophic 1298
(z, −)−Failed SuperHyperClique neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for 1299
an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1300
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 1301
of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 1302

there’s z neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 1303
tices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; 1304
it’s also called an neutrosophic (−, x)−Failed SuperHyperClique neutrosophic Failed 1305
SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 1306
if it’s an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 1307
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neut- 1308

rosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1309

amid x neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1310
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an neutrosophic (z, x)−Failed SuperHyper- 1311
Clique neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHy- 1312
perGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1313
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic Su- 1314
perHyperSet S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z neutrosophic 1315

SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic Su- 1316
perHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the neutrosophic extension of 1317
the neutrosophic notion of the neutrosophic clique in the neutrosophic graphs to the neutro- 1318
sophic SuperHyperNotion of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic 1319
SuperHyperGraphs where in the neutrosophic setting of the graphs, there’s an neutrosophic 1320
(1, 2)−Failed SuperHyperClique since an neutrosophic graph is an extreme SuperHyperGraph; 1321
Proposition 6.0.17. An extreme clique in an extreme graph is an extreme (1, 2)−Failed SuperHy- 1322
perClique in that extreme SuperHyperGraph. And reverse of that statement doesn’t hold. 1323
Proposition 6.0.18. A neutrosophic clique in a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic (1, 2)−Failed 1324
SuperHyperClique in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. And reverse of that statement doesn’t 1325
hold. 1326
Proposition 6.0.19. Assume an extreme (x, z)−Failed SuperHyperClique in an extreme SuperHy- 1327
perGraph. For all zi ≤ z, xi ≤ x, it’s an extreme (xi , zi )−Failed SuperHyperClique in that extreme 1328
SuperHyperGraph. 1329
Proposition 6.0.20. Assume a neutrosophic (x, z)−Failed SuperHyperClique in a neutrosophic 1330
SuperHyperGraph. For all zi ≤ z, xi ≤ x, it’s a neutrosophic (xi , zi )−Failed SuperHyperClique in 1331

that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1332
Definition 6.0.21. ((neutrosophic)δ−Failed SuperHyperClique). 1333

(i) an δ−Failed SuperHyperClique is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 1335

cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities 1336
of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 1337
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (6.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (6.2)
The Expression (6.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the Expression (6.2), 1338
holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 1339
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique is a maximal neutrosophic of SuperHyper- 1340

Vertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions 1341
hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 1342
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (6.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (6.4)
The Expression (6.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 1343
Expression (6.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 1344

Table 6.1: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition (6.0.24)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet

The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (6.0.23)

For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” 1345
the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 1346
the position of labels to assign to the values. 1348
Definition 6.0.22. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined neutrosophic 1349

SuperHyperGraph if the Table (6.1) holds. 1350
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to 1351
get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more understandable. 1352
Definition 6.0.23. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic 1353
SuperHyperClasses if the Table (6.2) holds. Thus neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyper- 1354
Cycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, 1355
are neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neut- 1356
rosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHy- 1357

perMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (6.2) holds. 1358
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperClique. Since there’s more 1359
ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperClique more understandable. 1360
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the 1361
notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 1362
the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to 1363
the values. 1364
Definition 6.0.24. Assume a Failed SuperHyperClique. It’s redefined a neutrosophic Failed 1365
SuperHyperClique if the Table (6.3) holds. 1366



CHAPTER 7 1367
Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1368
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s neither empty SuperHy- 1369
perEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyper- 1370
Vertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. S The 1371
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1372

of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVer- 1373
tices, S is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 1374
ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality 1375
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme 1376
SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique 1377
is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, S{z}. There’s not only three 1378
extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1379
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1380
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme Supe- 1381
rHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S doesn’t have less 1382
than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1383
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, 1384
the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, S is the non-obvious simple extreme 1385
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of 1386
the extreme SuperHyperVertices, S is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme 1387
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices 1388
such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by 1389
that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme 1390
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme Su- 1391
perHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for 1392
some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the ex- 1393
treme Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside 1394
the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, S Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, S 1395
is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, 1396
not: S is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices 1397
in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 1398
27
SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious 1404
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious 1405
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are S. In a connected 1406
featured On the Figures 1408
Example 7.0.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (7.1), (7.2), (7.3), (7.4), (7.5), (7.6), 1409
(7.7), (7.8), (7.9), (7.10), (7.11), (7.12), (7.13), (7.14), (7.15), (7.16), (7.17), (7.18), (7.19), and 1410
(7.20). 1411
• On the Figure (7.1), the extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme Failed SuperHyper- 1412
Clique, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop 1413
extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1414

extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 1415
extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is extreme isolated means that there’s no extreme Super- 1416
HyperEdge has it as an extreme endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 1417
contained in every given extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The following extreme Super- 1418
HyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1419
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of ex- 1420

treme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1421
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme Super- 1422
HyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1423
for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1424
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme Super- 1425
HyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme Su- 1426
perHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet 1427
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }. There’s not only three extreme Super- 1428
HyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme 1429
Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called 1430
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only three 1431
extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1432

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1433
extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1434
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of 1435
extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type- 1436
SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of 1437
the extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1438

C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyper- 1439
Set S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for 1440
some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1441
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since 1442
it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme Supe- 1443
rHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount extreme 1444

SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed Supe- 1445
rHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1446
extreme SuperHyperSet, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed Super- 1447
HyperClique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1448
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the extreme SuperHy- 1449
perSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a 1450
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the 1451
only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1452
is only and only

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }.
• On the Figure (7.2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. E1 and 1456
E3 Failed SuperHyperClique are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop SuperHy- 1457
perEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1458
only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that 1459
there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1460

V3 , is contained in every given extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The following extreme 1461
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1462
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of 1463
extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1464
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme Super- 1465
HyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1466

HyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme Su- 1469
perHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet 1470
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }. There’s not only three extreme Super- 1471
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1476
extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type- 1479
the extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1481

extreme SuperHyperSet, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed Super- 1490
HyperClique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1491

of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the extreme SuperHy- 1492
perSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a 1493
is only and only

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }.
• On the Figure (7.3), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. E1 , E2 1499
and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1500
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The following extreme 1501
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1502
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. {}. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme Supe- 1503
rHyperVertices, {}, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed Supe- 1504
rHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {}, is an 1505
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : 1506

(V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality of an 1507
extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme Supe- 1508
rHyperEdge amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique 1509
is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. There’s not 1510
only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus 1511
the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme type- 1512
SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet 1513
includes only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 1514
SuperHyperVertices, {}, doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1515
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {}, is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1518

the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1519
SuperHyperVertices, {}, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme 1520
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVer- 1521
tices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices 1522
given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s 1523
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality 1524

of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an ex- 1525

treme SuperHyperEdge for some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme 1526
type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than 1527
four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, {}. Thus 1528
the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, {}, is up. The obvious simple extreme 1529
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {}, is the extreme SuperHy- 1530
perSet, not: {}, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 1531
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1532
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1533
is only and only

{}.
• On the Figure (7.4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. 1537
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, and there 1538
are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } 1539
and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme Su- 1540

perHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed Su- 1541
perHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHy- 1542
perVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the ex- 1543
treme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyper- 1544
Vertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for 1545
an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1546

HyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme Supe- 1548
rHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of 1549
the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }. There’s not only three extreme Super- 1550
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1555
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type- 1558

the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1560

extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed Super- 1569
HyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1570
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the extreme SuperHy- 1571
perSet, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a 1572
is only and only

{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }.
• On the Figure (7.5), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s 1578
neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme SuperHyper- 1579
Set of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1580
Failed SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 1581
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1582
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHy- 1583
perVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1584

the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }. There’s not only three extreme Supe- 1589
rHyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme 1590
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1594
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type- 1597
the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyper- 1599
Clique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHy- 1600
perSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge 1601
for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1602

extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed Super- 1608
HyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1609
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the extreme Super- 1610
HyperSet, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices 1611
in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 1612
the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1613
is only and only

{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the 1617
SuperHyperModel ESHG : (V, E) in the Figure (7.5). 1618
• On the Figure (7.6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. 1619
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme 1620
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. {V5 , V6 , V15 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet 1622
of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1623
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1624
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1625
for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1626
with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 1627
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme 1628
SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of 1629
the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex 1630
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 1631
SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1632
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme 1633
SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1634
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 1635
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1636
Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 1637
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1638
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1639
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1640
for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S 1641
of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for 1642

it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 1645
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount 1646
extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme 1647
Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside 1648
the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 , V15 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 1649
SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1650
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1651
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 1652
is only and only {V5 , V6 , V15 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 1658
with an illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (7.6). It’s also, an extreme free-triangle 1659
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets 1660
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme 1661
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V5 , V6 , V15 }. 1662
• On the Figure (7.7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 1663
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 } is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHy- 1664
perEdge. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple ex- 1665
treme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }. 1666
The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is 1667
the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The ex- 1668
treme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is an 1669
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : 1670

(V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality of an 1671
extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme Supe- 1672
rHyperEdge amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique 1673
is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. 1674
There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme Supe- 1675
rHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvi- 1676
ous simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is 1677
an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the 1678
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, doesn’t 1679
have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus 1680
the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyper- 1681
Clique is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1682

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the ex- 1683
treme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme Super- 1684
HyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1685
for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of ex- 1686
treme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some ex- 1687
treme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme 1688
Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s 1689
HyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount extreme 1691
SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed 1692
SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the 1693
intended extreme SuperHyperSet, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme 1694
Failed SuperHyperClique, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme type- 1695
SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is 1696
the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, does includes only less than four 1697
SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting 1698
to mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1699
is only and only

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of depicted SuperHyperModel
as the Figure (7.7). But
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
are the only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyper- 1703
Clique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyper- 1704
Vertices. 1705
SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1710
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHy- 1711
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHy- 1714
perVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme SuperHy- 1715
perVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1716
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. There’s not only three extreme Super- 1717

extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 1725
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHy- 1726
perSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is an extreme Failed 1727
SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme 1728
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHy- 1729
perEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1730
called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 1731
Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 1732
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount extreme 1733
is only and only

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
are the only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHy- 1745
perClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Supe- 1746
rHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1747

SuperHyperModel as the Figure (7.8). 1748
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. {V5 , V6 , V15 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet 1752
of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1753
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1754

SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1755

SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of 1759
the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex 1760
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 1765
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1768
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1770
the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 , V15 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 1779
SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1780
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1781
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 1782
with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (7.9). It’s also, an extreme free- 1789
triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of 1790
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets 1791
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V5 , V6 , V15 }. In a connected neutrosophic 1792
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the 1793
Figure (7.9). 1794

SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1799
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHy- 1800
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. There’s not only three extreme Super- 1806

extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 1814
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHy- 1815
perSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is an extreme Failed 1816
SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme 1817
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHy- 1818
perEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1819
called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 1820
Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 1821
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount extreme 1822
is only and only

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }

are the only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHy- 1834
perClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Supe- 1835
rHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1836
neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme Supe- 1839
rHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1840
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of ex- 1841
treme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1842

the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme Su- 1843
perHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1844

extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex 1849
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHy- 1850
perClique is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed 1851
SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme SuperHyper- 1852
Vertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, 1853
doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. 1854
Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyper- 1855
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 1857
SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1858
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHy- 1859
perGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices 1860

such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given 1861
by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s 1862
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an 1864
extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that ex- 1865
treme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only 1866
less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, 1867
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is 1868
up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, 1869
not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, does includes only 1870
less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1871
It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1872
called the 1873

is only and only {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 1877
triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the 1879
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets 1880
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. In a connected extreme 1881
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1882

SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1887
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHy- 1888
the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }. There’s not only three extreme Supe- 1894
rHyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme 1895

extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type- 1902
SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet 1903
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyper- 1904
Clique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHy- 1905
perSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge 1906
for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1907
extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed Super- 1913
HyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1914
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is the extreme SuperHy- 1915
perSet, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in 1916
a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the 1917

is only and only {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1922

ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (7.11). It’s also, 1923
an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme type- 1924
SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme 1925
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }. In 1926

a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1927
neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme Supe- 1929
rHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1930
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of ex- 1931
treme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1932
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme Su- 1933
perHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1934

extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex 1939
inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHy- 1940
perClique is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed 1941
Vertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, 1943
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 1947
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHy- 1949
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is 1958
not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, does includes only 1960
called the 1963

of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. In a connected extreme 1971
neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme Super- 1974
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of ex- 1976
treme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1977
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme Supe- 1978
rHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 1979
perVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme SuperHyper- 1982
Vertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1983
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside 1984
the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyper- 1985
Clique is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed 1986
Vertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, 1988
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 1992
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHy- 1994
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is 2003
not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, does includes only 2005
called the 2008

is only and only V = {V1 , V2 , V3 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : 2012
(V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (7.14). It’s also, an extreme 2013
free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of 2014
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. In a connected extreme 2016
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : 2017
(V, E) is an extreme graph G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. 2018
neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme Super- 2020

extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of ex- 2022
treme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 2023
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme Supe- 2024
rHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 2025

perVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme SuperHyper- 2028
Vertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2029
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 }. There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside 2030
the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyper- 2031
Clique is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed 2032

Vertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, 2034
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed 2038

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHy- 2040

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is 2049
not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, does includes only 2051

called the 2054

(V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (7.15). It’s also, an extreme 2059
free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of 2060
of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. In a connected extreme 2062

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : 2063
(V, E) is an extreme graph G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. 2064
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected 2065
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (7.15). 2066

of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. E4 ∪ {V21 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of 2070
extreme SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 2071
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 2072
SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 2073

SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet 2077
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, E4 . There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex 2078
E4 ∪ {V21 }, doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 2083
SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet 2086
extreme SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 2088

the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, E4 ∪ {V21 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed 2097
SuperHyperClique, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 2098
the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, not: E4 ∪ {V21 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 2099
E4 ∪ {V21 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme 2100
is only and only E4 ∪ {V21 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 2106
with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (7.16). It’s also, an extreme free-triangle 2107
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme 2108
Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the 2109
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are E4 ∪ {V21 }. In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 2110

ESHG : (V, E). 2111

of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are E4 ∪ {V25 }. In a connected neutrosophic 2155
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured 2156
On the Figure (7.17). 2157



of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are E4 ∪ {V25 }. In a connected neutrosophic 2201
• On the Figure (7.19), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up.

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

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

ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality

of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by
extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHy-
perVertices, E8 . There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended
extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an
extreme SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyper-
Clique is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique.

Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },

ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such
that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given
by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of
an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme
SuperHyperEdge for some amount extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-
SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four
extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 }.
Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyper-
Clique, not:
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is the extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 2203
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic 2204
type-SuperHyperSet called the 2205

is only and only

E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated Super-
HyperModeling of the Figure (7.16). It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel.
But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHy-
perClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique, are
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 }.
In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2209
• On the Figure (7.20), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. The
following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-
SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique.
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The

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

ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s
no an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by
extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHy-
perVertices, E6 . There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended
extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an
extreme SuperHyperSet includes only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyper-
Clique is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },


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

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

E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated Super-
HyperModeling of the Figure (7.16). It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel.
But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHy-
perClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique, are
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 }.

Figure 7.1: The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperClique in the
Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Proposition 7.0.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then in the worst case, literally,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is a Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the 2217
cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperClique is the cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z}. 2218
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a Failed SuperHyperClique since
neither amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount
refers to the extreme number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one. Let us
consider the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z}. This extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to propose some amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges for
some amount of the extreme SuperHyperVertices taken from the mentioned extreme SuperHyperSet
and it has the maximum extreme cardinality amid those extreme type-SuperHyperSets but the
minimum case of the maximum extreme cardinality indicates that these extreme type-SuperHyperSets
couldn’t give us the extreme lower bound in the term of extreme sharpness. In other words, the
extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-
triangle style is up but sometimes the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices is free-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

Example (7.0.1)
happens in the generality of the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we

assume in the worst case, literally, V \ V \ {x, y, z}, is a Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words,
the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperClique
is the cardinality of V \ V \ {x, y, z}. Then we’ve lost some connected loopless neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses of the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle.
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 are well-
known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the examples for the tight bound of
V \ V \ {x, z}. Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need
at least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the principles of
the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the condition is on the existence
of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a
SuperHyperEdge, then the extreme SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended
definition to be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition.

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
To make sense with precise words in the terms of “Failed”, the follow-up illustrations are coming up.
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG :
(V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme

Example (7.0.1)
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge

amid some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by extreme SuperHyperClique is the extreme
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
There’s not only three extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet
includes only three extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is up.
To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}


(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E)
is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme
SuperHyperEdge for some extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet
called the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique.
Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an extreme SuperHyperEdge for some amount extreme
SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
extreme SuperHyperSet,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique,
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type- 2220
SuperHyperSet called the 2221

is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperMod-
eling. It’s also, an extreme free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, are
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
In a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
Proposition 7.0.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then the
extreme number of Failed SuperHyperClique has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for
cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
if there’s a Failed SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 2227
Proof. The extreme structure of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique decorates the extreme
SuperHyperVertices have received complete extreme connections so as this extreme style implies
different versions of extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum extreme cardinality in the terms
of extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower extreme bound is to have the minimum
extreme groups of extreme SuperHyperVertices have perfect extreme connections inside and the
outside of this extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the
used extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its extreme properties taken from the fact that it’s
simple. If there’s no extreme SuperHyperVertex in the targeted extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s
no extreme connection. Furthermore, the extreme existence of one extreme SuperHyperVertex
has no extreme effect to talk about the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since at least two
extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the extreme background of the extreme
SuperHyperGraph. The extreme SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no extreme SuperHyperEdge
but at least two extreme SuperHyperVertices make the extreme version of extreme SuperHyperEdge.

Thus in the extreme setting of non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one
extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as extreme
adjective for the initial extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no extreme appearance of the
loop extreme version of the extreme SuperHyperEdge and this extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to
be loopless. The extreme adjective “loop” on the basic extreme framework engages one extreme
SuperHyperVertex but it never happens in this extreme setting. With these extreme bases, on
an extreme SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme cardinality two. Thus, an extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique has the extreme cardinality at least two. Assume an extreme SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {z}. This extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique since either
the extreme SuperHyperGraph is an obvious extreme SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since
there’s no extreme usage of this extreme framework and even more there’s no extreme connection
inside or the extreme SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its consequences, there’s an extreme
contradiction with the term “extreme Failed SuperHyperClique” since the maximum extreme
cardinality never happens for this extreme style of the extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that
there’s no extreme connection inside as mentioned in first extreme case in the forms of drawback for
this selected extreme SuperHyperSet. Let V \ V \ {x, y, z} comes up. This extreme case implies
having the extreme style of on-triangle extreme style on the every extreme elements of this extreme
SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is the extreme SuperHyperSet of
the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that any extreme amount of the extreme SuperHyperVertices
are on-triangle extreme style. The extreme cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the
maximum in comparison to the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x} but the lower extreme bound is
up. Thus the minimum extreme cardinality of the maximum extreme cardinality ends up the extreme
discussion. The first extreme term refers to the extreme setting of the extreme SuperHyperGraph but
this key point is enough since there’s an extreme SuperHyperClass of an extreme SuperHyperGraph
has no on-triangle extreme style amid any amount of its extreme SuperHyperVertices. This extreme
setting of the extreme SuperHyperModel proposes an extreme SuperHyperSet has only two extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s extreme amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges involving these
two extreme SuperHyperVertices. The extreme cardinality of this extreme SuperHyperSet is the
maximum and the extreme case is occurred in the minimum extreme situation. To sum them up, the
extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x} has the maximum extreme cardinality such that V \ V \ {z, x}
contains some extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s amount extreme SuperHyperEdges for
amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices taken from the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x}. It
means that the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z, x}. is an
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique for the extreme SuperHyperGraph as used extreme background
in the extreme terms of worst extreme case and the lower extreme bound occurred in the specific
extreme SuperHyperClasses of the extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are extreme free-triangle.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

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

or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then the extreme
number of Failed SuperHyperClique has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality,
is the extreme cardinality of
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
if there’s a Failed SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 2234
cardinality. 2235
Proposition 7.0.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an extreme
SuperHyperEdge has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme cardinality of the extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique is at least
z ∪ {zx}
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is at least 2236
the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. 2237
In other words, the extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme 2238
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme Failed SuperHyperClique in some cases but the extreme 2239
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the extreme 2240
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 2241
Proof. Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyper-
Vertices. Then every extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge with
others in common. Thus those extreme SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in an
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Those extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in
an extreme style-Failed SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
are the extreme SuperHyperVertices of an extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the extreme
SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperGraph. The formal definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices and there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge
between the extreme SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the extreme
SuperHyperEdge in the terms of extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

This definition coincides with the definition of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique but with slightly
differences in the maximum extreme cardinality amid those extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the
extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|extreme cardinality ,

z
E
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Let Zi ∼ Zj ,
be defined as Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the extreme SuperHyperEdge
E. Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
But with the slightly differences, 2242
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
Thus E is an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique where E is fixed that means Ex = E. for

all extreme intended SuperHyperVertices but in an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, Ex could
be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). If an extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the
extreme cardinality of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is at least z. It’s straightforward that
the extreme cardinality of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is at least the maximum extreme
number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the
extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices are
renamed to extreme Failed SuperHyperClique in some cases but the extreme SuperHyperEdge with
the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the extreme SuperHyperVertices
are contained in an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}


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

or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an extreme
SuperHyperEdge has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme cardinality of the extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique is at least
z ∪ {zx}
It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is at least 2249
the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. 2250
In other words, the extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme 2251
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme Failed SuperHyperClique in some cases but the extreme 2252
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the 2253
extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 2254

Proposition 7.0.5. Assume a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2255
There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior extreme 2256
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique plus one extreme 2257
SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge 2258
has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices in an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique, plus 2259
one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 2260
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no SuperHyperEdges. But the non-obvious extreme
SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses some issues about the extreme
optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some remarks on the extreme SuperHyperSet
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges for
amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices taken from that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices but this extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices is
either has the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum extreme
SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one extreme
SuperHyperEdge containing at least two extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an extreme
quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique where the extreme completion of the extreme incidence is up in that.
Thus it’s, literarily, an extreme embedded Failed SuperHyperClique. The SuperHyperNotions of
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded
setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality
and they’re extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than three extreme SuperHyperVertices are
included in the minimum extreme style of the embedded extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The
interior types of the extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the extreme number of
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common
connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect connections inside the extreme SuperHyperSet
pose the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could
be used only in one extreme SuperHyperEdge and in extreme SuperHyperRelation with the
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices in that extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s the usage of exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve
more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the
title “interior”. One extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique with the exclusion of the exclusion of two extreme SuperHyperVertices
and with other terms, the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique with the inclusion of two extreme
SuperHyperVertices is an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique. To sum them up, in a connected
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), there’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge
has only less than three distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme
quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge
has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices in an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

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


(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

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

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

To sum them up, assume a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2268
There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior extreme 2269
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique plus one extreme 2270
SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge 2271
has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices in an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique, 2272
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 2273
Proposition 7.0.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all 2274
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique if for 2275
any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, the two interior extreme 2276
SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no extreme exception at all 2277
Proof. The main definition of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has two titles. An extreme quasi-
Failed SuperHyperClique and its corresponded quasi-maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality are
two titles in the terms of quasi-styles. For any extreme number, there’s an extreme quasi-Failed
SuperHyperClique with that quasi-maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the
embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph, then
the extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the extreme quasi-Failed
SuperHyperCliques for all extreme numbers less than its extreme corresponded maximum number.
The essence of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique ends up but this essence starts up in the
terms of the extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique, again and more in the operations of collecting
all the extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques acted on the all possible used formations of the
extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one extreme number. This extreme number is considered as
the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques. Let
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet
and
GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique
be an extreme number, an extreme SuperHyperSet and an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 2279
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.

As its consequences, the formal definition of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is re-formalized 2280
and redefined as follows. 2281
GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal technical definition 2282
for the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 2283
GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique =

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the extreme Failed 2284
SuperHyperClique poses the upcoming expressions. 2285

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 2286

= max zExtreme Number = 2}.
And then, 2287

|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = 2}.
To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 2288


= 2}.
2289

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2290

2291

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

be an extreme number, an extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and an extreme Failed SuperHyper- 2292

Clique and the new terms are up. 2293

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
2294

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
2295

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
2296

|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = max zExtreme Number }.
And with go back to initial structure, 2297

= 2}.
2298

= zExtreme Number |


= 2}.
2299

2300

|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = 2}.
Thus, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), the all interior extreme SuperHy-
perVertices belong to any extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique if for any of them, and any of
other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, the two interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are
mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no extreme exception at all.
The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, aAssume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 2308
extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique if for any 2309
of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, the two interior extreme 2310
SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no extreme exception at all 2311
Proposition 7.0.7. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The any extreme 2313
Failed SuperHyperClique only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior 2314
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has 2315
all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 2316
with no exception plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them but everything is possible 2317
about extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out plus one extreme 2318
SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 2319

Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme
SuperHyperEdge ESHE has some extreme SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all extreme numbers of
those extreme SuperHyperVertices from that extreme SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more
than r distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given extreme SuperHyperSet of the
extreme SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique with the least
cardinality, the lower sharp extreme bound for extreme cardinality. Assume a connected extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices
VESHE \ {z} is an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s
an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices in common but it isn’t
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t have the maximum extreme cardinality
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme
SuperHyperEdge to have a some SuperHyperVertices in common. The extreme SuperHyperSet of
the extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique.
Since it doesn’t do the extreme procedure such that such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to
have some extreme SuperHyperVertices in common [there are at least one extreme SuperHyperVertex
outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG :
(V, E), an extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that extreme
SuperHyperVertex in the extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the extreme procedure”.].
There’s only one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet,
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique, VESHE is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique, VESHE , is an extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all extreme
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of extreme pairs are titled extreme SuperHyperNeighbors
in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of
the extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality
SuperHyperEdge to have an extreme SuperHyperVertex in common. Thus, a connected extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The any extreme Failed SuperHyperClique only contains all
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique
extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors
in and there’s all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception but everything is possible
about extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

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


To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The any extreme 2327
Failed SuperHyperClique only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior 2328
extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them 2329
has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods 2330
in with no exception plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them but everything is possible 2331
about extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out plus one extreme 2332
SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 2333
2334
Remark 7.0.8. The words “ extreme Failed SuperHyperClique” and “extreme SuperHyperDominating” 2335
both refer to the maximum extreme type-style. In other words, they either refer to the maximum 2336
extreme SuperHyperNumber or to the minimum extreme SuperHyperNumber and the extreme 2337
SuperHyperSet either with the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality or with the minimum 2338
extreme SuperHyperCardinality. 2339
Proposition 7.0.9. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an 2340
extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has only one extreme 2341
representative minus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them in. 2342
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an extreme 2343
SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (7.0.7), the extreme results are up. Thus on a 2344
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), and in an extreme SuperHyperDominating, 2345
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has only one extreme representative minus one extreme 2346
SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them in. 2347

CHAPTER 8 2348
Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 2349
The previous extreme approaches apply on the upcoming extreme results on extreme SuperHyper- 2350
Classes. 2351
Proposition 8.0.1. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then an extreme 2352
Failed SuperHyperClique-style with the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality is an extreme 2353
SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 2354
one. 2355
Proposition 8.0.2. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then an extreme 2356
Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices 2357

with only no extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique 2358
extreme SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the 2359
extreme unique SuperHyperEdges plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed 2360
SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of all the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices without 2361
any minus on SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2362
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge
has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every extreme SuperHyperVertex
has at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those extreme
SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Those
extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an extreme style-Failed SuperHyperClique.
Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
87

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

E

are contained in an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. The main definition of the extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique has two titles. An extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique and its corresponded
quasi-maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-styles. For
any extreme number, there’s an extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique with that quasi-maximum
extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph. If there’s
an embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take
the collection of all the extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques for all extreme numbers less than
its extreme corresponded maximum number. The essence of the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique
ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique,
again and more in the operations of collecting all the extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques
acted on the all possible used formations of the extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one extreme
number. This extreme number is considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-Failed
SuperHyperCliques. Let
and





= zExtreme Number |


And then, 2372



= 2}.
2374

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2375

2376

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “extreme 2377
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 2378
such that any amount of its extreme SuperHyperVertices are incident to an extreme SuperHyperEdge. 2379
It’s, literarily, another name for “extreme Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” but, precisely, it’s 2380
the generalization of “extreme Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” since “extreme Quasi-Failed 2381

SuperHyperClique” happens “extreme Failed SuperHyperClique” in an extreme SuperHyperGraph 2382
as initial framework and background but “extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens 2383
“extreme Failed SuperHyperClique” in an extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 2384
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the extreme SuperHyperCardinality 2385
arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “extreme 2386
Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique”, and “extreme Failed SuperHyperClique” are up. 2387

Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and GExtreme Failed SuperHyperClique be an 2388
extreme number, an extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 2389
and the new terms are up. 2390


2391

= zExtreme Number |
2392

2393


= 2}.
2395

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2396



Thus, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), the all interior extreme
SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique if for any of them, and
any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, the two interior extreme SuperHyperVertices
are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no extreme exception at all. Assume a
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme SuperHyperEdge ESHE
has some extreme SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all extreme numbers of those extreme
SuperHyperVertices from that extreme SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct
extreme SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique with the least
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

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


(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

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

Figure 8.1: An extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of extreme Failed SuperHyper-
Clique in the Example (8.0.3)
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then an extreme 2404
with only no extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique 2406
extreme SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the 2407
extreme unique SuperHyperEdges plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed 2408
SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of all the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices without 2409
any minus on SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2410
Example 8.0.3. In the Figure (8.1), the connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E), is 2411
highlighted and featured. The extreme SuperHyperSet, corresponded to E5 , VE5 ∪ {V25 , of the 2412
extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E), in the 2413
extreme SuperHyperModel (8.1), is the Failed SuperHyperClique. 2414
Proposition 8.0.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Then an extreme 2415

with only no extreme exceptions on the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the same 2417
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any extreme SuperHyperVertex plus one extreme 2418
SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of all 2419
the extreme SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum extreme cardinality plus one extreme 2420
SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2421
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge
Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

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

E


and




= zExtreme Number |


And then, 2431


= 2}.
2433


= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2434

2435




2450



= zExtreme Number |
2451

2452


= 2}.
2454

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2455

2456


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

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

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

Figure 8.2: An extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (8.0.5)
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Then an extreme 2464

with only no extreme exceptions on the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the same 2466
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any extreme SuperHyperVertex plus one extreme 2467
SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of all 2468
the extreme SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum extreme cardinality plus one extreme 2469
Example 8.0.5. In the Figure (8.2), the connected extreme SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), is
highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, , corresponded to E8 , VE8 , by
the Algorithm in previous result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme
SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (8.2), corresponded to E8 ,
VE8 ∪ {H7 , J7 , K7 , P7 , L7 , U6 , O7 },
is the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 2471
Proposition 8.0.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then an extreme 2472
Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices, 2473
not extreme excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only all extreme exceptions in the extreme 2474

form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from common extreme SuperHyperEdge, extreme 2475
including only one extreme SuperHyperEdge plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An 2476
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of the extreme cardinality of the one 2477
extreme SuperHyperEdge plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2478
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge
Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

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

E


and





= zExtreme Number |


And then, 2488


= 2}.
2490

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.

2491

2492



2507

= zExtreme Number |
2508



2509


= 2}.
2511

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2512

2513



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

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


(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then an extreme 2521

not extreme excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only all extreme exceptions in the 2523
extreme form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from common extreme SuperHyperEdge, 2524
extreme including only one extreme SuperHyperEdge plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2525
An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of the extreme cardinality of the one 2526
extreme SuperHyperEdge plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2527
2528

Figure 8.3: An extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (8.0.7)
Example 8.0.7. In the Figure (8.3), the connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), is
highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous
extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperStar
ESHS : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (8.3), , corresponded to E6 ,
VE6 ∪ {W6 Z6 C7 D7 P6 E7 W7 },
Proposition 8.0.8. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Then an 2530
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme SuperHyper- 2531
Vertices with no any extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices titled 2532
extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with only no exception plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2533
An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number of on extreme cardinality of 2534
the first SuperHyperPart plus extreme SuperHyperNeighbors plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 2535
one. 2536
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Assume an extreme
SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every extreme
SuperHyperVertex has at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus
those extreme SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in an extreme Failed
SuperHyperClique. Those extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an extreme

style-Failed SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

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

E


and



= zExtreme Number |



And then, 2546


= 2}.
2548

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2549



2550


2565

= zExtreme Number |
2566

2567



= 2}.
2569

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2570

2571



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

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Then an extreme 2579
with no any extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices titled extreme 2581
SuperHyperNeighbors with only no exception plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An 2582
extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number of on extreme cardinality of 2583
the first SuperHyperPart plus extreme SuperHyperNeighbors plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 2584
to one. 2585
2586
Example 8.0.9. In the extreme Figure (8.4), the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB :
(V, E), is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by
the extreme Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the
connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (8.4), ,
corresponded to E6 ,
VE6 ∪ {P2 O2 T2 R2 U2 S2 V2 },

Figure 8.4: An extreme SuperHyperBipartite extreme Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique in the Example (8.0.9)
Proposition 8.0.10. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). 2588
Then an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 2589
SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exception in the extreme form of interior extreme 2590
SuperHyperVertices from an extreme SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the form of interior 2591
SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and 2592
ignoring more than one of them plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed 2593
SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number on all the extreme summation on the extreme 2594
cardinality of the all extreme SuperHyperParts form one SuperHyperEdges not plus any plus one 2595
extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2596
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Assume an extreme
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.

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

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

E


and



= zExtreme Number |



And then, 2606


= 2}.
2608

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2609

2610



2625

= zExtreme Number |
2626

2627



= 2}.
2629

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2630

2631


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

SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). Then 2639
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 2640
SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exception in the extreme form of interior extreme 2641
SuperHyperVertices from an extreme SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the form of interior 2642
SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting 2643
and ignoring more than one of them plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme 2644
Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number on all the extreme summation on the 2645
extreme cardinality of the all extreme SuperHyperParts form one SuperHyperEdges not plus any 2646
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2647
Example 8.0.11. In the Figure (8.5), the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : 2648
(V, E), is highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the 2649
Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected 2650
extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), , corresponded to E3 , VE3 ∪ V4 , in the extreme 2651
SuperHyperModel (8.5), is the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 2652

Figure 8.5: An extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme Failed

SuperHyperClique in the Example (8.0.11)
Proposition 8.0.12. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Then 2653
an extreme Failed SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 2654
SuperHyperVertices, not excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in the 2655
form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from same extreme SuperHyperEdge with not the 2656
exclusion plus any plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 2657
has the extreme maximum number on all the extreme number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges 2658
have common extreme SuperHyperNeighbors inside for an extreme SuperHyperVertex with the not 2659
exclusion plus any plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2660
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Assume an extreme
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z

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

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

E


and



= zExtreme Number |



And then, 2670


= 2}.
2672

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2673

2674




2689

= zExtreme Number |
2690

2691


= 2}.

2693

= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
2694

2695


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

or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Then an extreme 2703
not excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in the form of interior extreme 2705
SuperHyperVertices from same extreme SuperHyperEdge with not the exclusion plus any plus 2706
one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. An extreme Failed SuperHyperClique has the extreme 2707
maximum number on all the extreme number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges have common 2708
extreme SuperHyperNeighbors inside for an extreme SuperHyperVertex with the not exclusion plus 2709
any plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2710
2711
Example 8.0.13. In the extreme Figure (??), the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel N SHW : 2712
(V, E), is extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm 2713
in previous result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel 2714
ESHW : (V, E), , corresponded to E5 , VE6 , in the extreme SuperHyperModel (??), is the extreme 2715
Failed SuperHyperClique. 2716

Figure 8.6: An extreme SuperHyperWheel extreme Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme
Failed SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (8.0.13)

CHAPTER 9 2717
General Extreme Results 2718
For the Failed SuperHyperClique, extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, and the neutrosophic Failed 2719
SuperHyperClique, some general results are introduced. 2720
Remark 9.0.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is “redefined” on the 2721
positions of the alphabets. 2722
Corollary 9.0.2. Assume extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 2723
N eutrosophic F ailedSuperHyperClique =
{theF ailedSuperHyperCliqueof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseF ailedSuperHyperClique. }
plus one extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyper- 2724
Vertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, 2725
for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 2726
Corollary 9.0.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of the alphabet. 2727
Then the notion of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and Failed SuperHyperClique coincide. 2728
Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique if 2730
and only if it’s a Failed SuperHyperClique. 2731
Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest SuperHyperCycle if and only if 2733
it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 2734
Corollary 9.0.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same 2735

identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is its Failed 2736
SuperHyperClique and reversely. 2737
Corollary 9.0.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 2738

SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of 2739
the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is its Failed SuperHyperClique and 2740
reversely. 2741
141
Corollary 9.0.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 2742
perClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined. 2743
Corollary 9.0.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its 2744
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique 2745
isn’t well-defined. 2746
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its neutrosophic Failed 2748

SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined. 2749
Corollary 9.0.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic Failed 2750
SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique is well-defined. 2751

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique is 2753
well-defined. 2754

Proposition 9.0.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 2758
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2759
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2760
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2761
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2762
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2763
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2764
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All SuperHy- 2765
perMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet more than 2766
SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2767
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 2768
equivalent. 2769
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 2770
statements are equivalent. 2771
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 2772
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 2774
are equivalent. 2775
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 2776
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are equivalent. 2778
∀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.

2779
Proposition 9.0.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 2780
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2781
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2782
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2783
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2784
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2785
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2786
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All SuperHyper- 2787
Members of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than SuperHyperNeighbor 2788
out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2789
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 2790
equivalent. 2791
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 2792
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 2794
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡

∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 2796
equivalent. 2797
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 2798
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 2800
∀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.
2802
Proposition 9.0.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an independent 2803
SuperHyperSet is 2804
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2807

Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All SuperHyper- 2811
Members of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than SuperHyperNeighbor 2812
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 2814
following statements are equivalent. 2815
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 2816
since the following statements are equivalent. 2817
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 2818
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since 2820
the following statements are equivalent. 2821
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 2822
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 2824

Clique since the following statements are equivalent. 2825
∀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.
2826
Proposition 9.0.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph 2827

which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 2828
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2829
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2830
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2831
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2832
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2833
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2834
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2835
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUniform 2836

SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 2837
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2838
This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 2839
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2840
SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = 2841

|N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2842
∀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 Failed 2843
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 2844
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as exceptions, is out of S 2845
which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors 2846
in S, i.e, 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 exterior 2847
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform 2848
SuperHyperPath, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2849
∀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.
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 2851
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 2852
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s 2853
|V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2854

(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 2855
Proposition 9.0.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHy- 2856
perUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 2857
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2858
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2859
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2860

(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2861
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2862
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2863
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph which is a 2865

SuperHyperWheel. 2866
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the in- 2869
terior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = 2870
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2872

SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 2873
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus 2875
it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2876


which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 2879
(i) : the Failed SuperHyperClique; 2880
(ii) : the Failed SuperHyperClique; 2881
(iii) : the connected Failed SuperHyperClique; 2882
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 2883
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 2884

(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique. 2885
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices 2886
coincide. 2887

∀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.
∀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.


which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 2909
(i) : the dual Failed SuperHyperClique; 2910
(ii) : the dual Failed SuperHyperClique; 2911
(iii) : the dual connected Failed SuperHyperClique; 2912
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 2913
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 2914
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique. 2915
coincide. 2917

∀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| <
|{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 SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2925
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it 2928
isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2929


which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHy- 2932
perMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying 2933
r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 2934
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2938
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2939
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2940
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2941
SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 2942
SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2943
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 2944
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a 2945
given SuperHyperStar. 2946
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 2947
Clique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2948
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 2950
Clique and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A 2952
SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2953
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 2954
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor 2955
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 2956
O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s 2958
O(ESHG)
2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2959

which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete Super- 2962
HyperMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all 2963
the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart is a 2964
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2968
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 2969
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2970
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one 2971
of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 2972
Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in 2973
S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 2974
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a given 2975
SuperHyperStar. 2976
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 2977
SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2978
SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has no SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2979
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 2981

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.

SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyper- 2986
Complete SuperHyperBipartite. 2987
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s an δ- 2989
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 2990

HyperMultipartite. Then Then the number of 2994
O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying 3001
r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices. Where the 3002
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3003
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

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
O(ESHG)
Proposition 9.0.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The number of 3024
connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 3025
(iv) : Failed SuperHyperClique; 3029
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3030
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3031
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3032
Failed SuperHyperClique. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but 3033

no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 3034
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and 3035
number of connected component is |V − S|. 3036
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a dual 1- 3038
Proposition 9.0.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the number is 3041
at most O(ESHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 3042

V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 3046
equivalent. 3047
∀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.
equivalent. 3049
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 3050
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 3052
equivalent. 3053
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 3054
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 3056
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and V is the biggest SuperHyperSet 3058
in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 3059
at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 3060
Proposition 9.0.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is Su- 3061
perHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E))2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3062

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 3063
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3067
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3069
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3070
Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has n half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3071
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a given 3072
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 +1 and the neutrosophic 3073
number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3074
t>
2

(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3076
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 3078
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 3079
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 3080
t>
2
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3082
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 3084
Clique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 +1 3085

and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3086
t>
2
connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3087
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3088
∀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 Failed 3090
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 3091

O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in 3092
t>
2
the setting of a dual ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3094
SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has n half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3095
∀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 ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 3096
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 3097
O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the 3098
t>
2
setting of a dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3100
∀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 ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
setting of a dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

Proposition 9.0.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. The number 3106
is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 3107
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3111

(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 3117
equivalent. 3118
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting 3119
of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3120

(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 3121
∀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.

of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3124
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3125
∀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.
of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3128
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 3129
equivalent. 3130
∀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.
of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3132
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 3133
∀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.
of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3136
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3137
∀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.

of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3140
Proposition 9.0.28. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyper- 3141
Complete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 3142
Cycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic 3144
number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 3145
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3149
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3150
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3151
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle/Su- 3152

perHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 3153
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed Super- 3154
HyperClique. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S 3155
such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3156
∀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 Failed 3157
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperCycle. 3158
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3159
SuperHyperClique. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \S 3160
such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3161
∀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.

SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperPath. 3163
such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3166
∀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.
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperWheel. 3168

(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s 3170
a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3171
Thus the number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the 3173
setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3174
perHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The number is 3176
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
setting of a dual 3178


SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 3186

SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3187
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 3188
∀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 SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3191

SuperHyperClique. 3192
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3194
SuperHyperClique and they are chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally 3196
as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3197
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
3198
in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor complete 3200
SuperHyperBipartite. 3201
O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHy- 3203
perClique. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3204
Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 +1 and the neutrosophic number is min Σ ⊆V σ(v),
v∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E))3206
t>
2
in the setting of all dual Failed SuperHyperClique. 3207
Proposition 9.0.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 3208
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is obtained 3209
for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these 3210
specific SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 3211
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the SuperHyper- 3212
Vertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are extended to the 3213
SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 3214
Proposition 9.0.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If S is a dual 3215
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 3216
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 3217
(ii) vx ∈ E. 3218

Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider v ∈ V \ S. 3219
Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, 3220
∀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 v ∈ V \ S. Since 3221
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, 3222
∀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.
3223
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then 3225
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 3226
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 3227
Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, either 3229
∀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 3230
∀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. 3231

S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, either 3233
∀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 3234
∀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.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. The only case 3235
is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies 3236
there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 3237
Proposition 9.0.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3238
(i) Γ ≤ O; 3239
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 3240
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 3241
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. For all SuperHyperSets of 3242

SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. 3243
It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of 3244
SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 3245
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 3246
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. For all SuperHyperSets 3247

of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3248
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 3249
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3250
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 3251

Proposition 9.0.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3252
connected. Then 3253
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 3254
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3255
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x} 3256
where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3257
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. For all SuperHyperSets 3258
of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 3259

S= 6 V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. 3260
So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 3261
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x} where x 3262
is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3263
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 3265

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for 3266
all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3267
So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3268
Proposition 9.0.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 3269
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 3270
Clique; 3271
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3272
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3273
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only a dual Failed 3274

Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where 3276
for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3277
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If 3278

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 3279
∃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 SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3280
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3281
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3283
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3284
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3285
SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 3286
where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3287
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 9.0.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 3293
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3294

(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 3295
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3296
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual Failed 3297
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for 3299
all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3300
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If 3301
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 3302
∃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 Failed 3303
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3304
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s 3307
enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3308
Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3309
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3310
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 9.0.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 3316
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 3317

Clique; 3318
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3319
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 3320
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only dual Failed 3321
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where 3323
for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3324
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 })|
∃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)|.

Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3333
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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


∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 9.0.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 3340
Clique; 3342
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3344
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual Failed 3345
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where 3347
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 3357
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 9.0.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 3364
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal Failed SuperHyperClique; 3365
(ii) Γ = 1; 3366
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 3367
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed SuperHyperClique. 3368
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 3369
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, 3370

then 3371
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {c} 3372
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3373
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s enough to 3375

show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) 3376
is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 3377
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3378
Proposition 9.0.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 3379
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal 3380
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3381
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 3382
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 3383
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual maximal 3384
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 3386

6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 3387
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 3388
∀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 SuperHyperDefensive 3389
0 6+3(i−1)≤n
Failed SuperHyperClique. If S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 3390
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 3391
∀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 3392
∀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 z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 3393
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. It 3394
6+3(i−1)≤n
induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3395
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 3397
Proposition 9.0.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 3398
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3399
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 3400
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 3401
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3402
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 3403
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=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If S 0 = 3404
bn c+1 bn
2 c+1
{vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3405
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 3406
bn c+1
Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3407
Proposition 9.0.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 3410
bnc
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 3412
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 3413
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3414

bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 3416
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 bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
−{z} 3417
bn c
where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 2
, then 3418
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1 2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3419
bn c
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed
2
3420
Proposition 9.0.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic SuperHyperStars 3423

with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 3424
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 3425

for N SHF; 3426
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 3427
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 3428
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed SuperHyperClique 3429
for N SHF : (V, E). 3430
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 3432

N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3433
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c}−{c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3434
It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 3435

for N SHF : (V, E). 3436

(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 3438
N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3439
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 3440
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3441
Proposition 9.0.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd SuperHyperComplete 3442

SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 3443
b n c+1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 3444
Clique for N SHF; 3445
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 3446

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 3447
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal Failed SuperHyperClique for 3448
N SHF : (V, E). 3449
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 3450
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : 3451
0 bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
(V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3452
n n
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
Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 3454
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3455
Proposition 9.0.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even SuperHyperComplete 3457

bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 3459
N SHF : (V, E); 3460
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 3461
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 3462
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
are only dual maximal Failed SuperHyperClique for 3463
N SHF : (V, E). 3464
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 3465
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3466
n
0 b c bn
2c
If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
, then 3467
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 3468
bn
2c
Clique for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3469
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3470
Proposition 9.0.47. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 3472
statements hold; 3473
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3474

SuperHyperClique, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3475
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3476
SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3477
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 3478
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3479
Then 3480
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3481
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a SuperHyperSet 3482
S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3483
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3484
Proposition 9.0.48. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 3485
statements hold; 3486
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3487
SuperHyperClique, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique; 3488

SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique. 3490
Then 3493
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. By S is an 3494

s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and S is a dual (s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 3495
Failed SuperHyperClique, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique. 3496
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. By S is an (s − 3499
2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and S is a dual s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3500

SuperHyperClique, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique. 3501
Proposition 9.0.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3502

SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 3503
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3506
Failed SuperHyperClique; 3507
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3508

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 3510

Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHy- 3512

perGraph. Then 3513
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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 3514

(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3515
Then 3516
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3517
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3518

Then 3519
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3520

(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3521
Then 3522
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3523
Proposition 9.0.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3524

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3528
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3530

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3532


perGraph. Then 3535
∀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
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3536
and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3537
∀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
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3538
and an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3539
∀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.
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3540

and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3541
∀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.
3542
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 3544
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3547

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3549

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 3551


perGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3554
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3558
∀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.
∀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.
3561

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3566
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3568

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 3570

perGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 3573
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 3576
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3580

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3583


SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 3585
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3586
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3588
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3590

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3592


perGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3595
∀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.

and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3597
∀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.

and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3599
∀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.

and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3601
∀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.
3602


(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3605
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3607
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3609
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 3611


perGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 3614
∀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.

which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 3617
∀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.

CHAPTER 10 3625
Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 3626
Recognition 3627
The cancer is the extreme disease but the extreme model is going to figure out what’s going on this 3628
extreme phenomenon. The special extreme case of this extreme disease is considered and as the 3629
consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but 3630
the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The extreme recognition of 3631
the cancer could help to find some extreme treatments for this extreme disease. 3632
In the following, some extreme steps are extreme devised on this disease. 3633
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The extreme recognition of the cancer in the long-term extreme 3634
function. 3635
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the extreme model [it’s called 3636
extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long extreme cycle of the move from the cancer is identified 3637
by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there 3638
are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 3639
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 3640
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 3641
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific extreme models, which are well-known and 3642
they’ve got the names, and some general extreme models. The moves and the extreme traces of 3643
the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized 3644
by an extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 3645
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the extreme Failed 3646
SuperHyperClique or the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in those neutrosophic extreme 3647
SuperHyperModels. 3648
185
CHAPTER 11 3649
Case 1: The Initial extreme Steps Toward 3650
extreme SuperHyperBipartite as extreme 3651
SuperHyperModel 3652
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the extreme Figure (11.1), the extreme SuperHyperBipartite is 3653
extreme highlighted and extreme featured. 3654
By using the extreme Figure (11.1) and the Table (11.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 3655
is obtained. 3656
The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous extreme result, 3657
Figure 11.1: An extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme Failed

SuperHyperClique
187
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite

of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : 3658

(V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (11.1), is the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 3659

CHAPTER 12 3660
Case 2: The Increasing extreme Steps 3661
Toward extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 3662
as extreme SuperHyperModel 3663
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the extreme Figure (12.1), the extreme SuperHyperMultipartite is 3664
extreme highlighted and extreme featured. 3665
By using the extreme Figure (12.1) and the Table (12.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperMulti- 3666
partite is obtained. 3667
The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous result, of the ex- 3668
treme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 3669
in the extreme SuperHyperModel (12.1), is the extreme Failed SuperHyperClique. 3670
Figure 12.1: An extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme Failed

SuperHyperClique
189
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite


CHAPTER 13 3671
Open Problems 3672
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 3673
The Failed SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique are defined on a 3674
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 3675
Question 13.0.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s recognitions? 3676
Question 13.0.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to Failed SuperHyperClique and the 3677
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique? 3678
Question 13.0.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to compute 3679
them? 3680
Question 13.0.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the Failed SuperHyperClique 3681
and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique? 3682
Problem 13.0.5. The Failed SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique do a 3683
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on Failed SuperHyperClique, are 3684
there else? 3685
Problem 13.0.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these SuperHyperNum- 3686
bers types-results? 3687
Problem 13.0.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions concerning the 3688
multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 3689
191
CHAPTER 14 3690
Conclusion and Closing Remarks 3691
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks of this 3692
research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are highlighted. 3693
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more understandable. 3694
In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the Failed SuperHyperClique. For 3695
that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3696
is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the new definition for the neutrosophic 3697
SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, finds the 3698
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some 3699
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 3700
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s 3701
Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, Failed SuperHyperClique, the 3702
new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered 3703
in the section on the Failed SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 3704
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this 3705
research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 3706
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been 3708
the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture 3711
are formally called “ Failed SuperHyperClique” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 3712
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for 3713
the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (14.1), some limitations and advantages of this research are 3714
pointed out. 3715
193
Table 14.1: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. Failed SuperHyperClique
3. Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies

Bibliography 3716


Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3723

tps://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3735

prints202301.0105.v1). 3738
2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3741

Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3744
195
10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3747

2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3753

10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3756

10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3763


[17] Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3770
Forwarding Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3771
[18] Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and 3773
Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHy- 3774
perGraphs With (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3775
10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 3776

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 3782

2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3785

10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3788

10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3799

(2018) 122-135. 3813
410-413. 3816

CHAPTER 15 3818
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3819
The following sections are cited as follows, which is my 117th manuscript and I use prefix 117 as 3820
number before any labelling for items. 3821
3822
[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front 3823
of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition 3824
called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3825
3826
The links to the contributions of this research chapter are listed below. 3827
Article #117 3828

3829
3833
@WordPress: - 3834
3835
3837
3839

3841
3843
199
CHAPTER 16 3845
Indeterminacy On The All Possible 3846
Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s 3847
Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic 3848
Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 3849
Recognition called Neutrosophic 3850
201
CHAPTER 17 3852
Abstract 3853
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a Failed SuperHyper- 3854
Clique and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique . Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 3855
are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, 3856
and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review 3857
is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of 3858
this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 3859
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and 3860
the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are figured out 3861
to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are 3862
chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense Super- 3868
HyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. 3869
Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some 3870
questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperClique” 3871
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 3872
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a Super- 3873
HyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is 3874

a maximal Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that 3875
either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeigh- 3876
bors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 3877
Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 3878
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a maximal neutrosophic 3879
Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that 3880
either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 3881
s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ 3882
N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. 3883
And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. The SuperHyper- 3884
Notion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop 3885
SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is 3886
203
the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. S The 3887
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is the simple neutrosophic type- 3888
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 3889
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 3890
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 3891
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 3892
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic Su- 3893
perHyperVertices given by neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 3894
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S{z}. There’s not only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 3895
tex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed Su- 3896
perHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic 3897
Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three neutrosophic Super- 3898
HyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S doesn’t 3899

have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 3900
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is 3901
up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is the 3902
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 3903
Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is a neutrosophic 3904
Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the 3905
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neut- 3906
rosophic SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic 3907
type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic 3908
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutro- 3909
sophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic 3910
SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic 3911
type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than 3912
four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, S Thus 3913
the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, S is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 3914
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: S is the neutrosophic Super- 3915
HyperSet, not: S does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 3916
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 3920
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 3921
SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious 3923
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those 3924
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 3925
are S. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed 3926
SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figures. It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed 3927
SuperHyperClique . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperClique 3928
more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a 3929
need to “redefine” the notion of a “Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 3930

SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, 3931
there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Failed SuperHyperClique 3932
. It’s redefined a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, 3933
“The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 3934
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of 3935
Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 3936
Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 3937
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values 3938
of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next 3939
SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a Failed SuperHyperClique . It’s the main. It’ll be 3940
disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a 3941
need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperClique, then it’s officially called 3942
a “Failed SuperHyperClique” but otherwise, it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperClique . There are some 3943
instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “Failed SuperHyperClique ”. These 3944
two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary 3945
ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a Failed SuperHyperClique . For the sake of having a 3946
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic 3947
Failed SuperHyperClique” and a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices 3948
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 3949
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic 3950
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. 3951
And a Failed SuperHyperClique are redefined to a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” if the 3952
intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since 3953
there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3954
more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic 3955
SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, 3956
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 3957
“neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, 3958
“neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 3959
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic Failed 3960
SuperHyperClique” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the 3961
Failed SuperHyperClique amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed 3962
SuperHyperClique .] Failed SuperHyperClique . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 3963
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a 3964

Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition 3982
of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s 3983
called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 3984
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 3985
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 3986
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have 3987
convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which 3988
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The 3989
literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 3999
A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are 4000
proposed. 4001

CHAPTER 18 4004
Background 4005


207


“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and Su- 4063

perHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [HG15] by Henry Garrett 4064
(2022), “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And 4065
Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [HG16] by Henry 4066
Garrett (2022), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forward- 4067
ing Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG17] 4068
by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and 4069
Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With 4070
(Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [HG18] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different 4071





CHAPTER 19 4107
Motivation and Contributions 4108
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try to bring the 4109
motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some attacks from the situation 4110
which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing 4111
situations which in that, the cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals 4112
have excessive labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In 4113
the embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 4114
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more proper analysis 4115
on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” 4116
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of 4117
cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” and the relations between the individuals of cells and 4118
the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do 4119
research on this SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations 4120
get worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond them. 4121
There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality, for 4122
any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise data, and uncertain analysis. 4123
The latter model could be considered on the previous SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. 4124
It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is 4125
the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case 4126
of this disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The 4127
cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter 4128
of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease. The 4129
Recognition” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been 4131
the cancer in the forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 4134
formally called “ Failed SuperHyperClique” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 4135
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the 4136
SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region 4137
has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from 4138
the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 4139
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of 4140
the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 4141
211
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are 4142
some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general models. 4143
The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups 4144
of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, 4145
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is 4146
to find either the optimal Failed SuperHyperClique or the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 4147
in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 4148
SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but 4149
it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of 4150
a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the 4151
deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 4152
Question 19.0.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to find the “ 4153
amount of Failed SuperHyperClique” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells based on the 4154
fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of Failed SuperHyperClique” based on 4155
the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 4156
Question 19.0.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms of these 4157
messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 4158
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled “SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus 4159
it motivates us to define different types of “ Failed SuperHyperClique” and “neutrosophic Failed 4160
SuperHyperClique” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the 4161
research has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections 4162
amid this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances 4163
and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and 4164
some results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 4165
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 4166
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic definitions to clarify 4167
about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial definitions about SuperHyperGraphs 4168
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary 4169
concepts are clarified and illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to 4170
make sense about what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions 4171
and their clarifications alongside some results about new notions, Failed SuperHyperClique and 4172
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are figured out in sections “ Failed SuperHyperClique” and 4173
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order 4174
to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 4175
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are 4176
figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results 4177
on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart 4178
steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph 4179
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 4180
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and 4181
as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General 4182
Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as 4183
fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ Failed 4184
SuperHyperClique”, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 4185
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s done about 4186

the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and going to figure out 4187
the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ Failed 4188
SuperHyperClique”. The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s 4189
Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 4190
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as 4191
SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on 4192
what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to 4193
make sense to figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 4194
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s 4195
figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 4196

CHAPTER 20 4197
Preliminaries 4198
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, the new 4199
ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 4200
Definition 20.0.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[2],Definition 2.1,p.87).

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 ]− 0, 1 [. 4201
Definition 20.0.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[5],Definition 6,p.2).

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 20.0.3. 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 .
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
215
Definition 20.0.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref.[4],Definition 3,p.291). 4202

S = (V, E), where 4204
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 4209
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 4210
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 4211
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ); 4212
0
(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 . 4213

(Ref.[4],Section 4,pp.291-292). 4224

If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse types of 4235
general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 4236
Definition 20.0.7 (t-norm). (Ref.[3], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 4237
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1]×[0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 4238
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 4239
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 4240
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 4241
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 4242
Definition 20.0.8. 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 .
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
Definition 20.0.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 4243

S = (V, E), where 4245
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 4250
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 4251
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 4252
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ). 4253
0


(Ref.[4],Section 4,pp.291-292). 4264
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have some restrictions 4275
and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns 4276
and regularities. 4277
Definition 20.0.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of 4278
elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 4279
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to have more 4280
understandable. 4281
Definition 20.0.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses 4282
as follows. 4283
(i). It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 4284
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 4285
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 4286
SuperHyperEdges; 4287
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; 4288
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 4289
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 4290
in common; 4291

(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 4292
in common; 4294
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 4295
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 4296
SuperVertex. 4297
Definition 20.0.14. 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 neutrosophic 4298
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either of following 4299
conditions hold: 4300
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4301
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4302
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4303
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4304
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ E i0 ; 4305
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4306
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4307
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4308
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , Vi+1
0
∈ Ei0 . 4309
Definition 20.0.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s).

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 ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 4310
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 4311
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 4312
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 4313
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 4314
. 4315

Definition 20.0.16. ((neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique). 4316

(i) an neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4318
Graph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4319
Vertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 4320

S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of neutrosophic 4321
SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutro- 4322
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called a neutrosophic 4323
an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 4325

of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 4327
there’s z neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4328
Vertices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4329
tices; it’s also called a neutrosophic (−, x)−Failed SuperHyperClique neutrosophic Failed 4330
if it’s a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 4332

the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neut- 4333
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called a neutrosophic (z, x)−Failed SuperHyper- 4336
Clique neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic Super- 4337
HyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 4338

SuperHyperVertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Su- 4339
SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic Super- 4341
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the neutrosophic extension of the 4342
neutrosophic notion of the neutrosophic clique in the neutrosophic graphs to the neutrosophic 4343
SuperHyperNotion of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic SuperHy- 4344

perGraphs where in the neutrosophic setting of the graphs, there’s a neutrosophic (1, 2)−Failed 4345
SuperHyperClique since a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph; 4346
(ii) an neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4347
Graph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4348

Vertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 4349
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of neutrosophic 4350
SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutro- 4351
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called a neutrosophic 4352
an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 4354

of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 4356
there’s z neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4357
Vertices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4358
tices; it’s also called a neutrosophic (−, x)−Failed SuperHyperClique neutrosophic Failed 4359

if it’s a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 4361

the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neut- 4362
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called a neutrosophic (z, x)−Failed SuperHyper- 4365
Clique neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic Super- 4366
HyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 4367

SuperHyperVertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Su- 4368
SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic Super- 4370
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the neutrosophic extension of the 4371
neutrosophic notion of the neutrosophic clique in the neutrosophic graphs to the neutrosophic 4372
SuperHyperNotion of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic SuperHy- 4373

perGraphs where in the neutrosophic setting of the graphs, there’s a neutrosophic (1, 2)−Failed 4374
SuperHyperClique since a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph; 4375
Proposition 20.0.17. a neutrosophic clique in a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic (1, 2)−Failed 4376
hold. 4378
Proposition 20.0.18. A neutrosophic clique in a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic (1, 2)−Failed 4379
hold. 4381


Definition 20.0.21. ((neutrosophic)δ−Failed SuperHyperClique). 4388

(i) an δ−Failed SuperHyperClique is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 4390

cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities 4391
of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 4392
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (20.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (20.2)
The Expression (20.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the Expression (20.2), 4393
holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 4394
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique is a maximal neutrosophic of SuperHyper- 4395

Vertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions 4396
hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 4397
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (20.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (20.4)


to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (20.0.23)

The Expression (20.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 4398

Expression (20.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 4399
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” 4400
the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 4401
the position of labels to assign to the values. 4403
Definition 20.0.22. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined neutrosophic 4404

SuperHyperGraph if the Table (20.1) holds. 4405
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to 4406
get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more understandable. 4407
Definition 20.0.23. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic 4408
SuperHyperClasses if the Table (20.2) holds. Thus neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHy- 4409
perCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, 4410

are neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neut- 4411
rosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHy- 4412
perMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (20.2) holds. 4413
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperClique. Since there’s more 4414
ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperClique more understandable. 4415
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the 4416
notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 4417
the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to 4418
the values. 4419


Definition 20.0.24. Assume a Failed SuperHyperClique. It’s redefined a neutrosophic Failed 4420
SuperHyperClique if the Table (20.3) holds. 4421

CHAPTER 21 4422
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 4423
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s neither empty 4424
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 4425
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 4426

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. S The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutro- 4427
sophic SuperHyperVertices, S is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutro- 4428
sophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Su- 4429
perHyperVertices, S is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neut- 4430
rosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 4431
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 4432

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic Su- 4433
perHyperVertices given by neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 4434
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S{z}. There’s not only three neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4435
Vertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 4436
SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutro- 4437
sophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three neutrosophic 4438
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4439
S doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4440
Set. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 4441
SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHy- 4442
perVertices, S is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 4443
SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4444

S is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4445
ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 4446
there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 4447
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neut- 4448
rosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 4449
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a 4450

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 4451
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only 4452
less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 4453
S Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, S is up. The obvious simple 4454
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: S is the 4455
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a 4456
225
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 4457
SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious 4463
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those 4464
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 4465
are S. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed 4466
SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figures. 4467
Example 21.0.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (21.1), (21.2), (21.3), (21.4), (21.5), 4468
(21.6), (21.7), (21.8), (21.9), (21.10), (21.11), (21.12), (21.13), (21.14), (21.15), (21.16), (21.17), 4469
(21.18), (21.19), and (21.20). 4470
• On the Figure (21.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic Failed Su- 4471
perHyperClique, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E2 4472
is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus 4473
in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic SuperHy- 4474
perEdge, namely, E4 . The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is neutrosophic isolated means 4475
that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 4476
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 4477
perClique. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is 4478
the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 4479
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4480

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 4481
SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4482
tices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 4483
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 4484
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutro- 4485
sophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid some 4486
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the neut- 4487
rosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }. There’s not 4488
only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. 4489
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutro- 4490
sophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 4491
SuperHyperSet includes only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic 4492
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, doesn’t have less 4493
than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non- 4494
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 4495
is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4496
tices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 4497
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 4498

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4499

Clique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 4500
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic 4501
SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type- 4502
SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic 4503
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 4504
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a 4505

neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. There 4507
isn’t only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 4508
SuperHyperSet, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4509
Clique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 4510
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the neutrosophic Su- 4511
perHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices 4512
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention 4513
that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 4514
is only and only

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }.
E1 and E3 Failed SuperHyperClique are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop 4519
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeigh- 4520

bor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isol- 4521
ated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus the neutro- 4522
sophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 4523
perClique. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is 4524
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4526

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 4527
SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4528
tices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 4529

SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, doesn’t have less 4539

tices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 4543
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4545


SuperHyperSet, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4555
Clique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 4556
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the neutrosophic Su- 4557
perHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices 4558
is only and only

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }.
• On the Figure (21.3), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. E1 , E2 4564
and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 4565
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The following neutro- 4566
sophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type- 4567
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. {}. The neutrosophic SuperHy- 4568
perSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {}, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 4569
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutro- 4570
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {}, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 4571
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 4572

with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neut- 4573
rosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid 4574
some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the 4575
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. There’s 4576
not only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHy- 4577
perSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious 4578

simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a 4579

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the 4580
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {}, doesn’t have less than 4581
four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non- 4582
is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4584
{}, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 4585
SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHy- 4586
perVertices, {}, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic 4587
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic Supe- 4588
rHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic 4589
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic 4590
Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s 4591
sophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 4593
amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 4594
called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four neutro- 4595
sophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {}. Thus the 4596
non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, {}, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 4597
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {}, is the neutrosophic 4598
SuperHyperSet, not: {}, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected 4599
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 4600
is only and only

{}.
• On the Figure (21.4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a Failed SuperHyperClique, 4605

is up. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge 4606
on {F }, and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, along- 4607
side E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The following neutrosophic 4608
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type- 4609
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }. The 4610
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, 4611

is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 4612
perClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4613
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neut- 4614

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the neutro- 4618

sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }. There’s not 4619
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, doesn’t have less 4624

tices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 4628
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4630


SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4640
Clique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 4641
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the neutrosophic Su- 4642
perHyperSet, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices 4643
is only and only

{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }.
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neut- 4650
rosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type- 4651

SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }. The 4652
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, 4653
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 4656


sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }. There’s not 4661

SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, doesn’t have less 4666
tices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 4670

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 4672
perClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 4673
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 4682
perClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 4683
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the neutrosophic 4684
SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyper- 4685
Vertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 4686
mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 4687
is only and only

{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the 4691
SuperHyperModel ESHG : (V, E) in the Figure (21.5). 4692
• On the Figure (21.6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is 4693

up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 4694
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutro- 4695
sophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. {V5 , V6 , V15 }. 4696

The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is 4697

the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4698
Clique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4699
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutro- 4700
sophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 4701
rosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’s not only 4705
three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus 4706
the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutro- 4707
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, doesn’t have less than four 4710
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 4711
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is 4712
up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4713
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 4714
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Su- 4715
perHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 4716
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neut- 4717
rosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 4718
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 4719
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 4720
Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 4721

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for 4722
some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 4723
called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four neutrosophic 4724
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 , V15 }. Thus 4725
the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is up. The obvious 4726
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: 4727

{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, does includes only less 4728
than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 4729
called the 4731
with an illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (21.6). It’s also, a neutrosophic 4736
free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type- 4737
SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious[non-obvious] 4738

simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are 4739

{V5 , V6 , V15 }. 4740
• On the Figure (21.7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 4741
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 } is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHy- 4742
perEdge. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is 4743

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4745
tices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutro- 4746
sophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Super- 4747
HyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 4748
C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic 4749
type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutro- 4750

sophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a 4751
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 4752
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 4753
SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. There’s not only three neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4754
Vertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 4755
Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 4756

called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes 4757
only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 4758
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, doesn’t have less than four Su- 4759
perHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 4760
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 4763
SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic 4768

type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic 4769
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 4772
that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 4773
There isn’t only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutro- 4774
sophic SuperHyperSet, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 4775
SuperHyperClique, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type- 4776
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, 4777
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, does includes only less than 4778
four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s 4779
interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 4780
called the 4781

is only and only

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
are the only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed 4785
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the 4786
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 4787
rosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type- 4790
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. There’s 4800
doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4806
SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 4808
SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type- 4809
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic Super- 4810
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic 4811
Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 4812
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a 4813

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutro- 4814
sophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutro- 4815
sophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 4816
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 4817
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given 4818
by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 4819

called the 4827
is only and only

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : 4833
(V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the Figure (21.8). 4834


sophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. {V5 , V6 , V15 }. 4838
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is 4839
the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4840
Clique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4841
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutro- 4842

rosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’s not only 4847
three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus 4848
the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutro- 4849
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, doesn’t have less than four 4852

{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 4856
perHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 4858

SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 , V15 }. Thus 4867
the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is up. The obvious 4868
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, does includes only less 4870
than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 4871
called the 4873
with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (21.9). It’s also, a neutrosophic free- 4878
triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets 4879
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic 4880
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V5 , V6 , V15 }. In a 4881
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected 4882
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutro- 4885
sophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type- 4886

sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. There’s 4896

doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4902
SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 4904
SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type- 4905
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic Super- 4906
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic 4907
Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 4908
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a 4909

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutro- 4910
sophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutro- 4911
sophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 4912
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 4913
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given 4914
by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 4915

called the 4923
is only and only

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : 4929
(V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the Figure (21.10). 4930


sophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. 4934
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, 4935
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutro- 4938

SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t have less than 4948
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutro- 4952
sophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 4953
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 4954
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 4955
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 4956

sophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. 4963

Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The 4964
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4965
Clique, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, does 4966
includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4967
triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of 4975

the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type- 4976
SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. In a 4977
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 4978
rosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic 4981
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }. 4982
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, 4983

{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neut- 4986
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }. There’s not 4991

SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, doesn’t have less 4996
tices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 5000


SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 5012
perClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 5013
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is the neutrosophic 5014

SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyper- 5015
Vertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 5016
mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 5017

is only and only {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 5021
ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (21.11). It’s also, 5022
a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic 5023
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious 5024
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are 5025
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 5026
sophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. 5030
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, 5031

{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutro- 5034

SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t have less than 5044
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutro- 5048
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 5050


sophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. 5059
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The 5060
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 5061
Clique, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, does 5062
includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 5063

triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of 5071
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type- 5072
SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. In a 5073
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 5074
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. 5078
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, 5079

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neut- 5082
rosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 }. There’s not 5087

SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, doesn’t have less than 5092
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutro- 5096
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 5098


SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. Thus 5107
the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is up. The obvi- 5108
ous simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 5109
not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, does in- 5110
cludes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 5111

(V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (21.14). It’s also, a neutrosophic 5118
free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets 5119
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type- 5120
SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. In a 5121
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this neutrosophic 5122
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic graph G : (V, E) thus the notions in both 5123
settings are coincided. 5124
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. 5128
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, 5129

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neut- 5132
rosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 }. There’s not 5137
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, doesn’t have less than 5142
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutro- 5146

SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 5148


SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. Thus 5157
the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is up. The obvi- 5158
ous simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 5159
not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, does in- 5160
cludes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 5161

(V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (21.15). It’s also, a neutrosophic 5168
free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets 5169
SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. In a 5171
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this neutrosophic 5172
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic graph G : (V, E) thus the notions in both 5173
settings are coincided. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as 5174
Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (21.15). 5175
up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The fol- 5177
lowing neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 5178
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. E4 ∪ 5179
{V21 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, 5180
E4 ∪ {V21 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutro- 5183

rosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E4 . There’s not only three 5188
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 5189

non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 5190
type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic Su- 5191
perHyperSet includes only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic 5192
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, doesn’t have less than four 5193
E4 ∪ {V21 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 5197
perHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 5199

sophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, E4 ∪ {V21 }. 5208

Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is up. The obvious 5209
E4 ∪ {V21 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: E4 ∪ {V21 }, does includes only less than 5211
called the 5214
SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are E4 ∪ {V21 }. In a connected 5222
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 5223




called the 5262
featured On the Figure (21.17). 5272





called the 5311

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 5320
• On the Figure (21.19), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is

up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique.
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique.
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic Su-
perHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neut-
rosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid
some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E8 . There’s not only
three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed Super-
HyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s

the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some
amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet
called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 }.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed

SuperHyperClique, not:
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic Super- 5321
HyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 5322
is only and only

E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyper-
Modeling of the Figure (21.16). It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But
all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHy-
perClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
Failed SuperHyperClique, are
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 }.
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 5327
• On the Figure (21.20), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. The
following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique.
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },

E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique.

The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic Su-

perHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neut-
rosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid
some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E6 . There’s not only
three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed Super-
HyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },

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


E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic Super- 5328
HyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 5329
is only and only

E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
Modeling of the Figure (21.16). It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But
all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHy-
perClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
Failed SuperHyperClique, are
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 }.
Proposition 21.0.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a Failed SuperHyperClique since
neither amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount
refers to the neutrosophic number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one. Let us
consider the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z}. This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to propose some amount of neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges for some amount of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the

Example (21.0.1)
Example (21.0.1)

Example (21.0.1)
Example (21.0.1)

Example (21.0.1)
Example (21.0.1)

Example (21.0.1)
Example (21.0.1)

Example (21.0.1)
Example (21.0.1)

Example (21.0.1)
Example (21.0.1)

Example (21.0.1)
mentioned neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and it has the maximum neutrosophic cardinality amid
those neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets but the minimum case of the maximum neutrosophic
cardinality indicates that these neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the neutrosophic
lower bound in the term of neutrosophic sharpness. In other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-triangle style is up but
sometimes the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
is free-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 \ {x, y, z}, is a Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words, the least
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperClique is the cardinality
of V \ V \ {x, y, z}. Then we’ve lost some connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the
connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle. 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 are well-known classes in that setting and
they could be considered as the examples for the tight bound of V \ V \ {x, z}. Let V \ V \ {z} in
mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at least two SuperHyperVertices
to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the principles of the main definition since there’s no
condition to be satisfied but the condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting
on the SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. Thus the
V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by the necessity of the

Example (21.0.1)
pre-condition on the usage of the main definition.

The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

Example (21.0.1)
Example (21.0.1)

Example (21.0.1)
Example (21.0.1)

Example (21.0.1)
is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s
no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
There’s not only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

Example (21.0.1)
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper-
Clique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that
there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that

neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neut-
rosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutro-
sophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less
than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 5337
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
Modeling. It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple

neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious

simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
Proposition 21.0.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then the
neutrosophic number of Failed SuperHyperClique has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for
cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
if there’s a Failed SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 5345
Proof. The neutrosophic structure of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique decorates the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have received complete 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 minimum neutrosophic groups of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
have perfect neutrosophic connections inside 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 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 Failed SuperHyperClique. 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 Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic
cardinality two. Thus, a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic cardinality at
least two. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \V \{z}. This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 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 Failed SuperHyperClique” 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 \ {x, y, z} comes up. This neutrosophic case
implies having the neutrosophic style of on-triangle neutrosophic style on the every neutrosophic
elements of this neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any neutrosophic
amount of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are on-triangle neutrosophic style. The neutrosophic
cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet V \V \{x, y, z} is the maximum in comparison to the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x} 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-triangle neutrosophic style amid any amount of its
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. This neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel
proposes a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that
there’s neutrosophic amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges involving these two 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 V \ V \ {z, x} has the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
such that V \ V \ {z, x} contains some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s amount
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x}. It means that the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z, x}. is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique for
the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used neutrosophic background in the neutrosophic terms of
worst neutrosophic case and the lower neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are neutrosophic free-triangle.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

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


(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

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

or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then the
neutrosophic number of Failed SuperHyperClique has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound
for cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
if there’s a Failed SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 5352
cardinality. 5353
Proposition 21.0.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic
cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is at least
z ∪ {zx}
It’s straightforward that the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is 5354
at least the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic 5355
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum neutrosophic 5356
number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 5357
in some cases but the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum neutrosophic number of 5358
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a 5359

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 5360
Proof. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertices. Then every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at least one neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have
the eligibles to be contained in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Those neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a neutrosophic style-Failed SuperHyperClique.
Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the 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 a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge between the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in the terms of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

This definition coincides with the definition of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 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
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Let

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

E
Thus E is a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique where E is fixed that means Ex = E. for

all neutrosophic intended SuperHyperVertices but in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique,
Ex could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique
is at least z. It’s straightforward that the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique is at least the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the
maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to neutrosophic
Failed SuperHyperClique in some cases but the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum
neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
are contained in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

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

or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic

cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is at least
z ∪ {zx}
It’s straightforward that the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is 5368
at least the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic 5369
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 5370
neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to neutrosophic Failed 5371
SuperHyperClique in some cases but the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 5372
neutrosophic number of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5373
are contained in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 5374
Proposition 21.0.5. Assume a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : 5375

(V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior 5376
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique 5377

plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. In other words, there’s only an 5378
unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in 5379
a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique, plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of 5380
them. 5381
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no SuperHyperEdges. But the non-obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses some issues about the neutrosophic
optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some remarks on the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
for amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but this neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t
have maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s
at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Thus it forms a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique where the neutrosophic completion
of the neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, a neutrosophic embedded Failed
SuperHyperClique. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet
coincide. In the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have
the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal.
The less than three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum neutrosophic
style of the embedded neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The interior types of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are
only affected by the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more
precise and more formal, the perfect connections inside the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet pose the
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could
be used only in one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation
with the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In
the embedded neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s the usage of exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title
“exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no

connection, inside. Thus, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices

with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique with the
exclusion of the exclusion of two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and with other terms, the
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique with the inclusion of two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
is a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), there’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
has only less than three distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given
neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a neutrosophic quasi-
Failed SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

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

or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 5389
There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior neutrosophic 5390
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique plus one 5391
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. In other words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic 5392
SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a neutrosophic quasi- 5393
Failed SuperHyperClique, plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 5394
Proposition 21.0.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all 5395
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique 5396
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, the two 5397
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with 5398
no neutrosophic exception at all plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 5399
Proof. The main definition of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has two titles. a
neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique and its corresponded quasi-maximum neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-styles. For any neutrosophic number,
there’s a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique with that quasi-maximum neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an
embedded neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, then the neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us
to take the collection of all the neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques for all neutrosophic
numbers less than its neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperClique ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the neutrosophic
quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique, again and more in the operations of collecting all the neutrosophic
quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques acted on the all possible used formations of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one neutrosophic number. This neutrosophic number is considered as
the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques. Let
zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet
and
GNeutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique
be a neutrosophic number, a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 5400
Clique. Then 5401
[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class = {Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet = Gneutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ,
|Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality
= zneutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is re- 5402
formalized and redefined as follows. 5403
Gneutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ∈ ∪zneutrosophic Number

[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class =
∪zneutrosophic Number {Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
for the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 5405
Gneutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique =

{S ∈ ∪zneutrosophic Number
= zneutrosophic Number |
=
max zneutrosophic Number }.
[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the neutrosophic Failed 5406

[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class |
=

=
max zneutrosophic Number = 2}.
And then, 5409

|Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality = 2}.

= 2}.
5411

= 2}.

5412

=
5413

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “neutrosophic SuperHy- 5414
perNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5415

such that any amount of its neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are incident to a neutrosophic 5416
SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “neutrosophic Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” 5417
but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “neutrosophic Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” since 5418
“neutrosophic Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” happens “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” in 5419
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “neutrosophic SuperHy- 5420
perNeighborhood” may not happens “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” in a neutrosophic 5421

SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambigu- 5422
ities about the neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the 5423
terms, “neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “neutrosophic Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique”, 5424
and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” are up. 5425
Thus, let zneutrosophic Number , Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and Gneutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 5426
be a neutrosophic number, a neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and a neutrosophic Failed 5427

SuperHyperClique and the new terms are up. 5428

∪zneutrosophic Number {Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |neutrosophic Cardinality
=
5429

{Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zneutrosophic Number

|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality

=
5430

=
5431

|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality =

= 2}.
5433

= 2}.

5434

=
5435

|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality = 2}.
Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), the all interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique if for any of them,
and any of other corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, the two interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception
at all.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}


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

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, aAssume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all 5443
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique 5444
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, the two 5445
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 5446
neutrosophic exception at all plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 5447

Proposition 21.0.7. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The any 5448
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 5449
all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where 5450
there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic 5451
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one 5452
of them but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic 5453
SuperHyperNeighbors out plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 5454
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge ESHE has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all neutrosophic
numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ex-
cluding excluding more than r distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a neutro-
sophic Failed SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp neutrosophic bound for
neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic Super-
HyperEdge to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in common but it isn’t a neutrosophic
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neut-
rosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a some SuperHyperVertices in common. The neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum neutro-
sophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but it
isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t do the neutrosophic procedure
such that such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices in common [there are at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside implying
there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a neut-
rosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex in the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the neutrosophic
procedure”.]. There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the
obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, VESHE is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, VESHE , is a neutrosophic Su-
perHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of
neutrosophic pairs are titled neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices VESHE , is the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in common. Thus, a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The any neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique only contains
all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no excep-
tion but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors out.

The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutro-

sophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}


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

is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The any 5462
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 5463
all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where 5464
there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic 5465
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one 5466
of them but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic 5467
SuperHyperNeighbors out plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 5468
5469
Remark 21.0.8. The words “ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” and “neutrosophic Supe- 5470
rHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum neutrosophic type-style. In other words, they 5471
either refer to the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperNumber or to the minimum neutrosophic 5472
SuperHyperNumber and the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet either with the maximum neutrosophic 5473
SuperHyperCardinality or with the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. 5474
Proposition 21.0.9. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider 5475
a neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has only one 5476
neutrosophic representative minus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them in. 5477
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider a neutrosophic 5478
SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (21.0.7), the neutrosophic results are up. 5479
Thus on a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), and in a neutrosophic 5480
SuperHyperDominating, a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has only one neutrosophic 5481

representative minus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them in. 5482

CHAPTER 22 5483
Results on neutrosophic 5484
SuperHyperClasses 5485
The previous neutrosophic approaches apply on the upcoming neutrosophic results on neutrosophic 5486
SuperHyperClasses. 5487
Proposition 22.0.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then a 5488
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique-style with the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality is 5489
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices plus one neutrosophic 5490
Proposition 22.0.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then a 5492
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic 5493
SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic 5494
SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any 5495
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the neutrosophic unique SuperHyperEdges plus 5496
one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the 5497
neutrosophic number of all the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices without any minus on 5498
SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 5499
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Assume a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex has at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in common.
Thus those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in a neutrosophic
Failed SuperHyperClique. Those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a
neutrosophic style-Failed SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
287
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

z

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

E

are contained in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The main definition of the neutrosophic
Failed SuperHyperClique has two titles. a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique and its
corresponded quasi-maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of
quasi-styles. For any neutrosophic number, there’s a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique
with that quasi-maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, then
the neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the neutrosophic
quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques for all neutrosophic numbers less than its neutrosophic corresponded
maximum number. The essence of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ends up but this
essence starts up in the terms of the neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique, again and more
in the operations of collecting all the neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques acted on the all
possible used formations of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one neutrosophic number.

This neutrosophic number is considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-Failed
and

Clique. Then 5502



=


=

=
And then, 5510


= 2}.
5512



= 2}.
5513

=
5514



=

5530

=
5531

=
5532


= 2}.
5534


= 2}.
5535

=
5536

and any of other corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, the two interior neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all.
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge ESHE has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all neutrosophic numbers of
those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding
more than r distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper-
Clique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp neutrosophic bound for neutrosophic cardinality.
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in common but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique.
Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a
some SuperHyperVertices in common. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it
doesn’t do the neutrosophic procedure such that such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in common [there are at least one neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E), a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor,
to that neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do
“the neutrosophic procedure”.]. There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Neighborhood. Thus the obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, VESHE is up. The obvious

simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, VESHE , is

a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does
forms any kind of neutrosophic pairs are titled neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neut-
rosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neut-
rosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in common. Thus, a connected
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The any neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique
only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices from the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in
with no exception but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}).


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

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then a 5544
SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic 5546
SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any 5547
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the neutrosophic unique SuperHyperEdges plus 5548
one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the 5549
neutrosophic number of all the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices without any minus on 5550
SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 5551
Example 22.0.3. In the Figure (22.1), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E), 5552
is highlighted and featured. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, corresponded to E5 , VE5 ∪ {V25 , of the 5553
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E), 5554
in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22.1), is the Failed SuperHyperClique. 5555

Figure 22.1: a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed

SuperHyperClique in the Example (22.0.3)
Proposition 22.0.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Then a 5556

SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions on the form of interior neutrosophic 5558
SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any 5559
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic 5560
Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges in 5561
the terms of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 5562
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Assume a neutrosophic SuperHy-
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z

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

z

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

E


and

Clique. Then 5565



=


=

=
And then, 5573


= 2}.
5575



= 2}.
5576

=
5577



=

5593

=
5594

=
5595


= 2}.
5597


= 2}.
5598

=
5599



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


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

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Then a 5607
SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions on the form of interior neutrosophic 5609
SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any 5610
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic 5611
Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges in 5612
the terms of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to 5613
one. 5614
Example 22.0.5. In the Figure (22.2), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E),
is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, , corresponded to E8 , VE8 ,
by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22.2),
corresponded to E8 ,
VE8 ∪ {H7 , J7 , K7 , P7 , L7 , U6 , O7 },
is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 5615

Figure 22.2: a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (22.0.5)
Proposition 22.0.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then a 5616
SuperHyperVertices, not neutrosophic excluding the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only all 5618
neutrosophic exceptions in the neutrosophic form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5619
from common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, neutrosophic including only one neutrosophic 5620
SuperHyperEdge plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic Failed 5621
SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the one neutrosophic 5622
SuperHyperEdge plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 5623
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Assume a neutrosophic SuperHy-
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.

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

z

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

E


and
Clique. Then 5626



=


=

=
And then, 5634


= 2}.
5636


= 2}.
5637

=
5638


=

5654

=
5655

=
5656


= 2}.
5658


= 2}.
5659

=
5660



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


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

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then a 5668
SuperHyperVertices, not neutrosophic excluding the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only all 5670
neutrosophic exceptions in the neutrosophic form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5671

from common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, neutrosophic including only one neutrosophic 5672
SuperHyperEdge plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic Failed 5673
SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the one 5674
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 5675
5676
Example 22.0.7. In the Figure (22.3), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E),
is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22.3), , corresponded to
E6 ,
VE6 ∪ {W6 Z6 C7 D7 P6 E7 W7 },

Figure 22.3: a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (22.0.7)
Proposition 22.0.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Then 5678
a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic 5679
SuperHyperVertices with no any neutrosophic exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic 5680
SuperHyperVertices titled neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with only no exception plus one 5681
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic 5682
maximum number of on neutrosophic cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart plus neutrosophic 5683
SuperHyperNeighbors plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 5684
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Assume a

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

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

z

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

E


and
Clique. Then 5687



=


=

=
And then, 5695


= 2}.
5697


= 2}.
5698

=
5699


=

5715

=
5716

=
5717


= 2}.
5719


= 2}.
5720

=
5721



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


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

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Then a 5729

SuperHyperVertices with no any neutrosophic exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic 5731
SuperHyperVertices titled neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with only no exception plus one 5732
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the 5733
neutrosophic maximum number of on neutrosophic cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart plus 5734
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 5735
5736
Example 22.0.9. In the neutrosophic Figure (22.4), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
ESHB : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. The obtained neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22.4), , corresponded to E6 ,
VE6 ∪ {P2 O2 T2 R2 U2 S2 V2 },

Figure 22.4: a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite neutrosophic Associated to the neutrosophic

Notions of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the Example (22.0.9)
Proposition 22.0.10. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). 5738
Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior 5739
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exception in the neutrosophic form of 5740
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only no exception 5741
in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” 5742
with neglecting and ignoring more than one of them plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to 5743
one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic maximum number on all the 5744
neutrosophic summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of the all neutrosophic SuperHyperParts 5745
form one SuperHyperEdges not plus any plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 5746
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Assume a

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Then every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with
others in common. Thus those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained
in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are potentially
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.

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

z

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

E


and
Clique. Then 5749



=


=

=
And then, 5757


= 2}.
5759


= 2}.
5760

=
5761


=

5777

=
5778

=
5779


= 2}.
5781


= 2}.
5782

=
5783



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


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

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). Then a 5791

SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exception in the neutrosophic form of interior 5793
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the 5794
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” 5795
with neglecting and ignoring more than one of them plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to 5796
one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic maximum number on all the 5797
neutrosophic summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of the all neutrosophic SuperHyperParts 5798
form one SuperHyperEdges not plus any plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 5799
Example 22.0.11. In the Figure (22.5), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 5800
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and neutrosophic featured. The obtained neutrosophic Super- 5801
HyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5802
of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), , corresponded to E3 , 5803
VE3 ∪ V4 , in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22.5), is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 5804
5805

Figure 22.5: a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperClique in the Example (22.0.11)
Proposition 22.0.12. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Then a 5806
SuperHyperVertices, not excluding the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in 5808
the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 5809
with not the exclusion plus any plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic 5810
Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic maximum number on all the neutrosophic number of 5811
all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges have common neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors inside 5812
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the not exclusion plus any plus one neutrosophic 5813
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Assume a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in
common. Thus those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in a
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are potentially
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z

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

z

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

E


and

Clique. Then 5817



=


=

=
And then, 5825


= 2}.
5827



= 2}.
5828

=
5829



=

5845

=
5846

=
5847


= 2}.
5849


= 2}.
5850

=
5851



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


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

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

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Then a 5859
SuperHyperVertices, not excluding the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception 5861
in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 5862
with not the exclusion plus any plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic 5863
Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic maximum number on all the neutrosophic number 5864
of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges have common neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors inside 5865
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the not exclusion plus any plus one neutrosophic 5866
5868
Example 22.0.13. In the neutrosophic Figure (22.6), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 5869
N SHW : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic 5870
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5871

of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), , corresponded to E5 , VE6 , in the 5872
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22.6), is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 5873

Figure 22.6: a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel neutrosophic Associated to the neutrosophic Notions

of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (22.0.13)

CHAPTER 23 5874
General neutrosophic Results 5875
For the Failed SuperHyperClique, neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, and the neutrosophic 5876
Failed SuperHyperClique, some general results are introduced. 5877
Remark 23.0.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is “redefined” on the 5878
positions of the alphabets. 5879
Corollary 23.0.2. Assume neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 5880
N eutrosophic F ailedSuperHyperClique =
{theF ailedSuperHyperCliqueof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseF ailedSuperHyperClique. }
plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 5881
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and 5882
the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 5883
Corollary 23.0.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of the 5884
alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and Failed SuperHyperClique 5885
coincide. 5886
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a neutrosophic Failed 5888
SuperHyperClique if and only if it’s a Failed SuperHyperClique. 5889
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest SuperHyperCycle if 5891
and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 5892
Corollary 23.0.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same 5893

identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is its Failed 5894
SuperHyperClique and reversely. 5895

SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of 5897
the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is its Failed SuperHyperClique and 5898
reversely. 5899
349
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique 5903
isn’t well-defined. 5904


neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique is 5911
well-defined. 5912

Proposition 23.0.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 5916
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 5917
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 5918
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 5919
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 5920
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 5921
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 5922
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 5926
equivalent. 5927
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 5928
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 5930
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 5932
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 5934
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are equivalent. 5936
∀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.

5937
Proposition 23.0.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 5938
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 5941
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 5948
equivalent. 5949
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 5950
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 5952
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡

∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 5954
equivalent. 5955
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 5956
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 5958
∀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.
5960
Proposition 23.0.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an independent 5961
SuperHyperSet is 5962
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 5965

Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All SuperHyper- 5969
Members of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than SuperHyperNeighbor 5970
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 5972
following statements are equivalent. 5973
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 5974
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 5976
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since 5978
the following statements are equivalent. 5979
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 5980
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 5982

Clique since the following statements are equivalent. 5983
∀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.
5984

which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 5986
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 5990
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 5991
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 5992


∀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.
∀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.

Proposition 23.0.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 6014

SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 6015

(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6019
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6020
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6021

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6030

(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus 6033
it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6034


which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 6037
(i) : the Failed SuperHyperClique; 6038
(ii) : the Failed SuperHyperClique; 6039
(iii) : the connected Failed SuperHyperClique; 6040
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 6041
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 6042

(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique. 6043
coincide. 6045

∀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.
∀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.


which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 6067
(i) : the dual Failed SuperHyperClique; 6068
(ii) : the dual Failed SuperHyperClique; 6069
(iii) : the dual connected Failed SuperHyperClique; 6070
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 6071
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 6072
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique. 6073
coincide. 6075

∀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| <
|{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 SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6083
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it 6086
isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6087


which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHy- 6090
perMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying 6091
r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 6092
O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
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
O(ESHG)

HyperMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all 6121
the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart is a 6122
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6126
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6127
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6128
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one 6129
of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 6130
Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in 6131
S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 6132
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
SuperHyperStar. 6134
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 6139

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.

SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyper- 6144
Complete SuperHyperBipartite. 6145
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s an δ- 6147

HyperMultipartite. Then Then the number of 6152
O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying 6159
r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices. Where the 6160
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 6161
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

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
O(ESHG)
Proposition 23.0.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The number of 6182
connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 6183
(iv) : Failed SuperHyperClique; 6187
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 6190
Failed SuperHyperClique. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but 6191

no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 6192
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and 6193
number of connected component is |V − S|. 6194
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a dual 1- 6196
Proposition 23.0.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the number is 6199
at most O(ESHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 6200

equivalent. 6205
∀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.
equivalent. 6207
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 6208
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 6210
equivalent. 6211
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 6212
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 6214
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and V is the biggest SuperHyperSet 6216
in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 6217
at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 6218
perHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E))2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 6220

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 6221
t>
2


Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 6228
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a given 6230
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 +1 and the neutrosophic 6231
number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 6232
t>
2

(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 6234
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 6236
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 6237
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 6238
t>
2
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 6240
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 6242
Clique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 +1 6243

and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 6244
t>
2
connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6245
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 6246
∀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 Failed 6248
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 6249

O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in 6250
t>
2
the setting of a dual ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6252
SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has n half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 6253
∀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 ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
setting of a dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 6258
∀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 ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
setting of a dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

Proposition 23.0.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. The 6264
number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of 6265
dual 6266
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6270

(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 6276
equivalent. 6277
∀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.
of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6279
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 6280
∀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.

of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6283
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 6284
∀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.
of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6287
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 6288
equivalent. 6289
∀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.
of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6291
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements 6292
∀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.
of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6295
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 6296
∀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.

of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6299
Complete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 6301
Cycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic 6303
number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 6304
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6308
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6309
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6310
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle/Su- 6311

perHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 6312
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed Super- 6313
HyperClique. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S 6314
such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 6315
∀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.
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperCycle. 6317
such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 6320
∀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.

SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperPath. 6322
such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 6325
∀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.
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperWheel. 6327

(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s 6329
a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6330
Thus the number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the 6332
setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6333
perHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The number is 6335
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
setting of a dual 6337


SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 6345

SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 6346
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 6347
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 6353

SuperHyperClique and they are chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally 6355
as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 6356
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a

given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHy-
perBipartite.
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i).
O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2 is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHy-
perClique. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique.
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv).
Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v),

t>
2
in the setting of all dual Failed SuperHyperClique. 6357
Proposition 23.0.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 6358
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is obtained 6359
for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these 6360
specific SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 6361
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the SuperHyper- 6362
Vertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are extended to the 6363
SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 6364
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 6366
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 6367

(ii) vx ∈ E. 6368
Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, 6370
∀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).
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, 6372
∀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.
6373
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then 6375
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 6376
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 6377
Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, either 6379
∀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 6380
∀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.
It implies S is SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperSet. 6381

S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, either 6383
∀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 6384
∀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.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. The only case 6385
is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies 6386
there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 6387
(i) Γ ≤ O; 6389
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 6390
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 6391
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. For all SuperHyperSets of 6392

SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. 6393
It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of 6394
SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 6395
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 6396
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. For all SuperHyperSets 6397

of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 6398
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 6399
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 6400
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 6401

Proposition 23.0.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 6402
connected. Then 6403
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 6404
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 6405
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x} 6406
where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 6407
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 6409

S= 6 V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. 6410
So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 6411
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x} where x 6412
is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 6413
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 6415

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for 6416
all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 6417
So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 6418
Proposition 23.0.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 6419
Clique; 6421
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 6423
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only a dual Failed 6424

Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where 6426
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 })|

∃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)|.
SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 6436
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 23.0.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 6443
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6444

(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 6445
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 6446
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual Failed 6447
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for 6449
all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 6450
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 })|
∃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)|.
Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 6459
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 23.0.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 6466
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 6467

Clique; 6468
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 6469
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 6470
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only dual Failed 6471
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where 6473
for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 6474
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 })|
∃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)|.

Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 6483
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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


∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 23.0.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 6490
Clique; 6492
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 6494
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual Failed 6495
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where 6497
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 6507
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 23.0.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 6514
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal Failed SuperHyperClique; 6515
(ii) Γ = 1; 6516
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 6517
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed SuperHyperClique. 6518
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, 6520

then 6521
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {c} 6522
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6523
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s enough to 6525

show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) 6526
is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 6527
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6528
Proposition 23.0.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 6529
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal 6530
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6531
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 6532
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 6533
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual maximal 6534
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 6536

6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 6537
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 6538
∀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 SuperHyperDefensive 6539
0 6+3(i−1)≤n
Failed SuperHyperClique. If S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 6540
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 6541
∀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 6542
∀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 z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 6543
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. It 6544
6+3(i−1)≤n
induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 6545
Proposition 23.0.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 6548
b n c+1
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 6550

2
; 6551
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6552
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 6553
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If S 0 = 6554
bn c+1 bn
2 c+1
{vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 6555
n n
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 c+1
Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6557
Proposition 23.0.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 6560
bnc
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 6562
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 6563
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6564

bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 6566
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
−{z} 6567
bn c
where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 2
, then 6568
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1 2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6569
bn c
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed
2
6570
Proposition 23.0.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6573

Stars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 6574
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 6575

for N SHF; 6576
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 6577
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 6578
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed SuperHyperClique 6579
for N SHF : (V, E). 6580
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 6582

N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 6583
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c}−{c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 6584
It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 6585

for N SHF : (V, E). 6586

(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 6588
N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6589
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 6590
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 6591
Proposition 23.0.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd SuperHyperComplete 6592

b n c+1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 6594
Clique for N SHF; 6595
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 6596

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 6597
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
2
are only a dual maximal Failed SuperHyperClique for 6598
N SHF : (V, E). 6599
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 6600
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : 6601
0 bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
(V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 6602
n n
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
Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 6604
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 6605
Proposition 23.0.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even SuperHyperComplete 6607

bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 6609
N SHF : (V, E); 6610
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 6611
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 6612
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
are only dual maximal Failed SuperHyperClique for 6613
N SHF : (V, E). 6614
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 6615
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 6616
n
0 b c bn
2c
If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
, then 6617
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 6618
bn
2c
Clique for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6619
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 6620
following statements hold; 6623
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6624

SuperHyperClique, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 6625
SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6627
Then 6630
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6631
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6634
following statements hold; 6636
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6637
SuperHyperClique, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique; 6638

SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique. 6640
Then 6643
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. By S is an 6644

s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and S is a dual (s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 6645
Failed SuperHyperClique, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique. 6646
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. By S is an (s − 6649
2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and S is a dual s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6650

SuperHyperClique, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique. 6651
Proposition 23.0.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 6652

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 6656
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6658

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 6660


perGraph. Then 6663
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 6665
Then 6666
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 6668

Then 6669
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6670

(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 6671
Then 6672
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6673

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6678
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6680

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6682


perGraph. Then 6685
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
and an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6689
∀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.

∀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.
6692
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6697

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6699

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 6701


perGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 6704
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6708
∀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.
∀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.
6711

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 6716
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6718

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 6720

perGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 6723
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6730

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6733


(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6736
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6738
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6740

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6742


perGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 6745
∀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.

and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 6747
∀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.

and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 6749
∀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.

and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 6751
∀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.
6752


(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6755
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6757
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 6759
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 6761


perGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 6764
∀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.

CHAPTER 24 6775
neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 6776
neutrosophic Recognition 6777
The cancer is the neutrosophic disease but the neutrosophic model is going to figure out what’s 6778
going on this neutrosophic phenomenon. The special neutrosophic case of this neutrosophic disease 6779
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under 6780
attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The 6781
neutrosophic recognition of the cancer could help to find some neutrosophic treatments for this 6782
neutrosophic disease. 6783
In the following, some neutrosophic steps are neutrosophic devised on this disease. 6784
Step 1. (neutrosophic Definition) The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the long-term 6785
neutrosophic function. 6786
Step 2. (neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the neutrosophic model 6787
[it’s called neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long neutrosophic cycle of the move from 6788
the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily 6789
identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves 6790
and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 6791
said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened 6792
and what’s done. 6793
Step 3. (neutrosophic Model) There are some specific neutrosophic models, which are well-known 6794
and they’ve got the names, and some general neutrosophic models. The moves and the 6795
neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells 6796
could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 6797
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either 6798
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique or the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in 6799

those neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 6800
393
CHAPTER 25 6801
Case 1: The Initial neutrosophic Steps 6802
Toward neutrosophic 6803
SuperHyperBipartite as neutrosophic 6804
Step 4. (neutrosophic Solution) In the neutrosophic Figure (25.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6806
Bipartite is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 6807
Figure 25.1: a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed

SuperHyperClique
395
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite

By using the neutrosophic Figure (25.1) and the Table (25.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6808
Bipartite is obtained. 6809
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in previous neutro- 6810
sophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHy- 6811
perBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25.1), is the neutrosophic 6812

CHAPTER 26 6814
Case 2: The Increasing neutrosophic 6815
Steps Toward neutrosophic 6816
SuperHyperMultipartite as neutrosophic 6817
Step 4. (neutrosophic Solution) In the neutrosophic Figure (26.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6819
Multipartite is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 6820
By using the neutrosophic Figure (26.1) and the Table (26.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6821
Multipartite is obtained. 6822
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in previous result, 6823
Figure 26.1: a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperClique
397
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite

of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 6824

ESHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (26.1), is the neutrosophic Failed 6825

CHAPTER 27 6827
Open Problems 6828
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 6829
The Failed SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique are defined on a 6830
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 6831
Question 27.0.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s recognitions? 6832
Question 27.0.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to Failed SuperHyperClique and the 6833
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique? 6834
Question 27.0.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to compute 6835
them? 6836
Question 27.0.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the Failed SuperHyperClique 6837
and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique? 6838
Problem 27.0.5. The Failed SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique do a 6839
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on Failed SuperHyperClique, are 6840
there else? 6841
Problem 27.0.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these SuperHyperNum- 6842
bers types-results? 6843
Problem 27.0.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions concerning the 6844
multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 6845
399
CHAPTER 28 6846
Conclusion and Closing Remarks 6847
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks of this 6848
research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are highlighted. 6849
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more understandable. 6850
In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the Failed SuperHyperClique. For 6851
that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 6852
is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the new definition for the neutrosophic 6853
SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, finds the 6854
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some 6855
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 6856
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s 6857
Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, Failed SuperHyperClique, the 6858
new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered 6859
in the section on the Failed SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 6860
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this 6861
research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 6862
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been 6864
the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture 6867
are formally called “ Failed SuperHyperClique” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 6868
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for 6869
the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (28.1), some limitations and advantages of this research are 6870
pointed out. 6871
401
Table 28.1: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. Failed SuperHyperClique
3. Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies

Bibliography 6872


Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 6879

tps://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 6891

prints202301.0105.v1). 6894
2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 6897

Preprints 2023, 2023010044 6900
403
10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 6903

2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 6909

10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 6912

10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 6919


[17] Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 6926
Forwarding Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 6927
[18] Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and 6929
Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHy- 6930
perGraphs With (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 6931
10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 6932

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 6938

2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 6941

10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 6944

10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 6955

(2018) 122-135. 6969
410-413. 6972

CHAPTER 29 6974
Books’ Contributions 6975
“Books’ Contributions”: | Featured Threads 6976

The links to the contributions of this research book are listed below. Article #116 6977
6978
Graphs 6981
6982
@WordPress: - 6983
6984
6986
6988
6990
6992
@ZENODO_ORG: https://zenodo.org/record/7523370 Article #117 6993
6994

6998
@WordPress: - 6999
7000
7002
7004
7006
7008
407

7010
– 7011
7012
#Latest_Updates 7013
7014
#The_Links 7015
7016
| Book #68 7017
7018
|Title: Failed SuperHyperClique 7019
7020
| Available at Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd, Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn, and Amazon 7021
7022
– 7023
7024
| Publisher | – 7025
7026
| ISBN | – 7027
7028
#Latest_Updates 7029
7030
#The_Links 7031
7032
| @ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366991079 7033
7034
| @Scribd: - 7035
7036
| @academia: - 7037
7038
| @ZENODO_ORG: - 7039
7040
| @WordPress: - 7041
7042
7043

Failed SuperHyperClique (Published Version) 7044

7045
The Link: 7046
7047
- 7048
7049
– 7050
7051
Posted by Dr. Henry Garrett 7052
7053
January -, 2023 7054
7055
Posted in 0068| Failed SuperHyperClique 7056
7057
Tags: 7058
Applications, Applied Mathematics, Applied Research, Cancer, Cancer’s Recognition, Combinatorics, 7059
Edge, Edges, Failed SuperHyperClique, Graph Theory, Graphs, Latest Research, Literature Reviews, 7060
Modeling, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, Neutrosophic Graph, Neutrosophic Graph 7061
Theory, Neutrosophic Science, Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses, Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, 7062

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Theory, neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs, Open Problems, Open 7063
Questions, Problems, Pure Math, Pure Mathematics, Questions, Real-World Applications, Recent 7064
Research, Recognition, Research, Research Article, Research Articles, Research Book, Research 7065
Chapter, Research Chapters, Review, SuperHyperClasses, SuperHyperEdges, SuperHyperGraph, Su- 7066
perHyperGraph Theory, SuperHyperGraphs, SuperHyperModeling, SuperHyperVertices, Theoretical 7067
Research, Vertex, Vertices 7068

CHAPTER 30 7069
“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | 7070
Featured Tweets 7071
“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets 7072
411
Figure 30.1: “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets

Figure 30.2: “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets

Figure 30.3: “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets #69
























CHAPTER 31 7073
CV 7074
439
7075
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
Henry Garrett CV
Status: Known As Henry Garrett With Highly Productive Style.
Fields: Combinatorics, Algebraic Structures, Algebraic Hyperstructures, Fuzzy

Logic
Prefers: Graph Theory, Domination, Metric Dimension, Neutrosophic Graph

Theory, Neutrosophic Domination, Lattice Theory, Groups and
Hypergroups
Activities: Traveling, Painting, Writing, Reading books and Papers
Professional Experiences
2017 - Present Continuous Member AMS
I tried to show them that Science is not only interesting, it’s beautiful and exciting.
Participating in the academic space of the largest mathematical Society gave me valuable
experiences. The use of Bulletin and Notice of the American Mathematical Society is another
benefit of this presence.
2017 - 2019 Continuous Member EMS
The use Newsletter of the European Mathematical Society is benefit of this membership.
I am interested in giving a small, though small, effect on math epidemic progress
Awards and Achievements
Sep 2022 Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to JMTCM JMTCM
Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to Journal of Mathematical Techniques and

Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Jun 2022 Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to JCTCSR JCTCSR
Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to Journal of Current Trends in Computer

Science Research(JCTCSR)
Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research(JCTCSR)
Jan 23, 2022 Award: Diploma By Neutrosophic Science International Association Neutrosophic Science International
Association
Award: Distinguished Achievements

Honorary Memebrship
Journal Referee
Sep 2022 Editorial Board Member to JMTCM JMTCM
Editorial Board Member to Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational

Mathematics(JMTCM)
Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Jun 2022 Editorial Board Member to JCTCSR JCTCSR
Editorial Board Member to Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science

Research(JCTCSR)
Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research(JCTCSR)
7076
Publications: Articles
2023 0126 | Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition Manuscript
as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1).
Available at Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd, Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn
2023 0125 | Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Manuscript
Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s
Recognition
Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy
Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010282 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1).
2023 0124 | Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).).
2023 0123 | The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Manuscript
Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers
In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph
Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells
Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based
on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1).
2023 0122 | Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Manuscript
Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010262,(doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1).
2023 0121 | Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Manuscript
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1).
2023 0120 | Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Manuscript
Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224,
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1).
2023 0119 | SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s Recognition Manuscript
In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767).
7077
2023 0118 | The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition Manuscript
With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680).
2023 0117 | Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In Manuscript
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243).
2023 0116 | Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s Recognition Manuscript
in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922).
2023 0115 | (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1).
2023 0114 | Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”,
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30092.80004).
2023 0113 | Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in Manuscript
the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClique
Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and Sub-
Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849).
2023 0112 | Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling Manuscript
in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
2023 0111 | Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Manuscript

Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”,
2023 0110 | Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic Failed Manuscript
SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs
7078
Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968).
2022 0109 | 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph
Garrett, Henry. “0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and
(Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN
European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European
Organization for Nuclear Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942.
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942
2022 0108 | 0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Garrett, Henry. “0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs.” CERN

European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 2022. CERN European
Organization for Nuclear Research, https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724.
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724
2023 0107 | Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To
Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”,
Preprints 2023, 2023010044
2023 0106 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled Manuscript

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010043 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1).
2022 0105 | Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs Article
and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes
Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic
Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper
Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) (2022) 242-263.
2023 0104 | Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Manuscript
Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
2023 0103 | Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Manuscript

Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints
Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”,
2023 0102 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled Manuscript

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123).
7079
2022 0101 | Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond
Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To
Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”,
2022 0100 | (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642).
2022 0099 | Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling Manuscript
in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
2022 0098 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) Manuscript

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2022, 2022120549 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1).
2022 0098 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) Manuscript

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, ResearchGate 2022,
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19380.94084).
2022 0097 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Manuscript

Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling
of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses

Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and
SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1).
2022 0097 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Manuscript

Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling
of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses

Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and
SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923).
2022 0096 | SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Manuscript

SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, Preprints 2022,
2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1).
2022 0096 | SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Manuscript

SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, ResearchGate
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640).
7080
2022 0095 | Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Manuscript
and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments
Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”,
2022 0095 | Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Manuscript

And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments
Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”,
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641).
2022 0094 | SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Manuscript

Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1).
2022 0094 | SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Manuscript

Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966).
2022 0093 | Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic Numbers in the Setting Article
of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic
Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends
Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14.
PDF,Abstract,Issue.
2022 0092 | Recognition of the Pattern for Vertices to Make Dimension by Resolving in some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Recognition of the Pattern for Vertices to Make Dimension
by Resolving in some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.27281.51046).
2022 0091 | Regularity of Every Element to Function in the Type of Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Regularity of Every Element to Function in the Type of Domination in

Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22861.10727).
2022 0090 | Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)
Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic
Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
(NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160).
2022 0089 | Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating and Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning Neutrosophic
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244).
2022 0088 | Seeking Empty Subgraphs To Determine Different Measurements in Some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
7081
Henry Garrett, “Seeking Empty Subgraphs To Determine Different Measurements in Some

Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30448.53766).
2022 0087 | Impacts of Isolated Vertices To Cover Other Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Impacts of Isolated Vertices To Cover Other Vertices in Neutrosophic

Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16185.44647).
2022 0086 | Perfect Locating of All Vertices in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Perfect Locating of All Vertices in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”,
2022 0085 | Complete Connections Between Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Complete Connections Between Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0084 | Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic

2022 0083 | Single Connection Amid Vertices From Two Given Sets Partitioning Vertex Set in Some Classes Manuscript
of Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Single Connection Amid Vertices From Two Given Sets Partitioning
Vertex Set in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.32189.33764).
2022 0082 | Separate Joint-Sets Representing Separate Numbers Where Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
and Applications are Cases of Study
Henry Garrett, “Separate Joint-Sets Representing Separate Numbers Where Classes
of Neutrosophic Graphs and Applications are Cases of Study”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.22666.95686).
2022 0081 | Repetitive Joint-Sets Featuring Multiple Numbers For Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Repetitive Joint-Sets Featuring Multiple Numbers For Neutrosophic

2022 0080 | Dual-Resolving Numbers Excerpt from Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs With Some Manuscript
Applications
Henry Garrett, “Dual-Resolving Numbers Excerpt from Some Classes of Neutrosophic
Graphs With Some Applications”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14971.39200).
2022 0079 | Dual-Dominating Numbers in Neutrosophic Setting and Crisp Setting Obtained From Classes Manuscript
of Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Dual-Dominating Numbers in Neutrosophic Setting and Crisp
Setting Obtained From Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.19925.91361).
2022 0078 | Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Numbers BasedOn Endpoints In Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
7082
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Numbers BasedOn Endpoints In Neutrosophic

2022 0077 | Neutrosophic Dominating Path-Coloring Numbers in New Visions of Classes of Neutrosophic Manuscript
Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Dominating Path-Coloring Numbers in New Visions of Classes
of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32151.65445).
2022 0076 | Path Coloring Numbers of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Shared Edges and Neutrosophic Manuscript
Cardinality of Edges With Some Applications from Real-World Problems
Henry Garrett, “Path Coloring Numbers of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Shared Edges
and Neutrosophic Cardinality of Edges With Some Applications from Real-World Problems”,
2022 0075 | Neutrosophic Collapsed Numbers in the Viewpoint of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Collapsed Numbers in the Viewpoint of Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0074 | Bulky Numbers of Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Neutrosophic Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Bulky Numbers of Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Neutrosophic

Edges”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24204.18564).
2022 0073 | Dense Numbers and Minimal Dense Sets of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dense Numbers and Minimal Dense Sets of Neutrosophic Graphs”,
2022 0072 | Connectivities of Neutrosophic Graphs in the terms of Crisp Cycles Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Connectivities of Neutrosophic Graphs in the terms of Crisp Cycles”,

2022 0071 | Strong Paths Defining Connectivities in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Strong Paths Defining Connectivities in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0070 | Finding Longest Weakest Paths assigning numbers to some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Longest Weakest Paths assigning numbers to some Classes of
Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35579.59689).
April 12, 2022 0069 | Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Article
Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi:
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). (http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf).
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss_journal/vol49/iss1/34).
Available at NSS, NSS Gallery, UNM Digital Repository, Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd,
Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn
2022 0068 | Relations and Notions amid Hamiltonicity and Eulerian Notions in Some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
7083
Henry Garrett, “Relations and Notions amid Hamiltonicity and Eulerian Notions in Some
Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35579.59689).
2022 0067 | Eulerian Results In Neutrosophic Graphs With Applications Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Eulerian Results In Neutrosophic Graphs With Applic- ations”,

2022 0066 | Finding Hamiltonian Neutrosophic Cycles in Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Hamiltonian Neutrosophic Cycles in Classes of Neutrosophic

2022 0065 | Extending Sets Type-Results in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Extending Sets Type-Results in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13317.01767).
2022 0064 | Some Polynomials Related to Numbers in Classes of (Strong) Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Some Polynomials Related to Numbers in Classes of (Strong) Neutrosophic

2022 0063 | Finding Shortest Sequences of Consecutive Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Shortest Sequences of Consecutive Vertices in Neutrosophic

2022 0062 | Neutrosophic Girth Based On Crisp Cycle in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Girth Based On Crisp Cycle in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0061 | e-Matching Number and e-Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “e-Matching Number and e-Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0060 | Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.33630.72002).
2022 0059 | Some Results in Classes Of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Some Results in Classes Of Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022030248 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202203.0248.v1).
2022 0058 | Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.18609.86882).
7084
2022 0057 | Fuzzy Dominating Number Based On Fuzzy Bridge And Applicaions Article
M. Hamidi, and M. Nikfar, “Fuzzy Dominating Number Based On Fuzzy

Bridge And Applicaions”, Fuzzy Systems and its Applications 4(2) (2022) 205-229
(https://doi.org/10.22034/jfsa.2022.306606.1092).
Oct 2018 0056 | The Effects of Mathematics on Computer Sciences Conference Article
M. Nikfar, “The Effects of Mathematics on Computer Sciences”, Second Conference

on the Education and Applications of Mathematics, Kermanshah, Iran, 2018
(https://en.civilica.com/doc/824659).
2022 0055 | (Failed) 1-clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “(Failed) 1-Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14241.89449).
2022 0054 | Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.36039.16800).
2022 0053 | Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.28338.68800).
2022 0052 | (Failed) 1-independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “(Failed) 1-Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30593.12643).
2022 0051 | Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022020334 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202202.0334.v2)
2022 0051 | Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31196.05768).
2022 0050 | Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022, 2022020334 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202202.0334.v1).
2022 0050 | Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.17472.81925).
2022 0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript

7085
Henry Garrett, “(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35241.26724).
2022 0048 | Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022020343 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202202.0343.v1).
2022 0048 | Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24873.47209).
2022 0047 | Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.32265.93286).
2022 0046 | Quasi-Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.18470.60488).
2022 0045 | Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022, 2022020100 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202202.0100.v1).
2022 0045 | Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Degree in ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25460.01927).

2022 0044 | Co-Neighborhood in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-Neighborhood in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.17687.44964).
2022 0043 | Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,
2022010429 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0429.v1).
2022 0043 | Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31784.24322).
2022 0042 | Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,
2022010429 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0429.v1).
7086
2022 0042 | Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26541.20961).
2022 0041 | Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong) Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong)
Edges”, Preprints 2022, 2022010239 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0239.v1).
2022 0041 | Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong) Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong)
Edges”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18486.83521).
2022 0040 | Three types of neutrosophic alliances based of connectedness and (strong) edges (In-Progress) Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three types of neutrosophic alliances based of connectedness and (strong)
edges (In-Progress)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27570.12480).
2022 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and
(Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints
2022, 2022010145 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0145.v1).
2022 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving
and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph”,
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18909.54244/1).
2022 0038 | Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, Preprints

2022, 2022010027 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0027.v1).
2022 0038 | Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”,

2021 0037 | Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic

Hypergraphs”, Preprints 2021, 2021120448 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0448.v1).
2021 0037 | Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic

Hypergraphs”, ResearchGate 2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13070.28483).
2021 0036 | Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript

7087
Henry Garrett, “Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, Preprints 2021,

2021120335 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0335.v1).
2021 0036 | Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19068.46723).
2021 0035 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness”, Preprints 2021,

2021120226 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0226.v1).
2021 0035 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness”, ResearchGate

2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18563.84001).
2021 0034 | Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, Preprints 2021,
2021120177 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0177.v1).
2021 0034 | Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, ResearchGate

2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36035.73766).
2021 0033 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs #12 Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs #12”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20690.48322).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29308.46725).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21614.54085).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34040.16648).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19464.96007).
7088
2021 0028 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14667.72481).
2021 0028 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v7).
2021 0027 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VI Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VI”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v6).
2021 0026 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-V Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-V”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v5).
2021 0025 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-IV Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-IV”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v4).
2021 0024 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-III Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-III”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v3).
2021 0023 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-II Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-II”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v2).
2021 0022 | Metric Dimension in Fuzzy Graphs and Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in Fuzzy Graphs and Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints
2021, 2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v1)
2021 0021 | Valued Number And Set Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Valued Number And Set”, Preprints 2021, 2021080229 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202108.0229.v1).
2021 0020 | Notion of Valued Set Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Notion of Valued Set”, Preprints 2021, 2021070410 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202107.0410.v1).
2021 0019 | Set And Its Operations Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Set And Its Operations”, Preprints 2021, 2021060508 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0508.v1).
7089
2021 0018 | Metric Dimensions Of Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimensions Of Graphs”, Preprints 2021, 2021060392 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0392.v1).
2021 0017 | New Graph Of Graph Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “New Graph Of Graph”, Preprints 2021, 2021060323 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0323.v1).
2021 0016 | Numbers Based On Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Numbers Based On Edges”, Preprints 2021, 2021060315 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0315.v1).
2021 0015 | Locating And Location Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Locating And Location Number”, Preprints 2021, 2021060206 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0206.v1).
2021 0014 | Big Sets Of Vertices Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Big Sets Of Vertices”, Preprints 2021, 2021060189 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0189.v1).
2021 0013 | Matroid And Its Outlines Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matroid And Its Outlines”, Preprints 2021, 2021060146 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0146.v1).
2021 0012 | Matroid And Its Relations Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matroid And Its Relations”, Preprints 2021, 2021060080 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0080.v1).
2021 0011 | Metric Number in Dimension Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Number in Dimension”, Preprints 2021, 2021060004 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0004.v1).
2018 0010 | A Study on Domination in two Fuzzy Models Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “A Study on Domination in two Fuzzy Models”, Preprints 2018, 2018040119 (doi:
10.20944/preprints201804.0119.v2).
2019 0009 | Nikfar Domination Versus Others: Restriction, Extension Theorems and Monstrous Examples Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination Versus Others: Restriction, Extension Theorems and

Monstrous Examples”, Preprints 2019, 2019010024 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v3).
2019 0008 | Nikfar Dominations: Definitions, Theorems, and Connections Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Dominations: Definitions, Theorems, and Connections”, ResearchGate

2019 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28955.31526/1).
7090
2019 0007 | Nikfar Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2019, 2019010024 (doi:

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v2).

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v2).
2018 0005 | The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040085
(doi: 10.20944/preprints201804.0085.v2).

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v1).
2019 0003 | Nikfar Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2019, 2019010025 (doi:

10.20944/preprints201901.0025.v1).
2018 0002 | Vertex Domination in t-Norm Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Vertex Domination in t-Norm Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040119 (doi:
10.20944/preprints201804.0119.v1).
2018 0001 | The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040085
(doi: 10.20944/preprints201804.0085.v1).
7091
Publications: Books
2023 0069 | SuperHyperMatching Amazon
ASIN : B0BSDPXX1P Publisher : Independently published (January 15, 2023) Language

: English Paperback : 582 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8373872683 Item Weight : 3.6 pounds
Dimensions : 8.5 x 1.37 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BSDC1L66 Publisher : Independently published (January 16, 2023) Language
: English Hardcover : 548 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8373875424 Item Weight : 3.3 pounds
2023 0068 | Failed SuperHyperClique Amazon
ASIN : B0BRZ67NYN Publisher : Independently published (January 10, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRYZTK24 Publisher : Independently published (January 10, 2023) Language
2023 0067 | SuperHyperClique Amazon
ASIN : B0BRWK4S1Y Publisher : Independently published (January 8, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRM24YJX Publisher : Independently published (January 8, 2023) Language :
English Hardcover : 388 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8373041935 Item Weight : 2.36 pounds Dimensions
: 8.25 x 1.1 x 11 inches
2023 0066 | Failed SuperHyperStable Amazon
ASIN : B0BRNG7DC8 Publisher : Independently published (January 4, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRLVN39L Publisher : Independently published (January 4, 2023) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.91 x 11 inches
2023 0065 | SuperHyperStable Amazon
ASIN : B0BRDG5Z4Y Publisher : Independently published (January 2, 2023) Language

Dimensions : 8.27 x 0.7 x 11.69 inches
ASIN : B0BRJPG56M Publisher : Independently published (January 2, 2023) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.87 x 11 inches
2023 0064 | Failed SuperHyperForcing Amazon
ASIN : B0BRH5B4QM Publisher : Independently published (January 1, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRGX4DBJ Publisher : Independently published (January 1, 2023) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.98 x 11 inches
2022 0063 | SuperHyperForcing Amazon
ASIN : B0BRDG1KN1 Publisher : Independently published (December 30, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BRDFFQMF Publisher : Independently published (December 30, 2022) Language
7092
2022 0062 | SuperHyperAlliances Amazon
ASIN : B0BR6YC3HG Publisher : Independently published (December 27, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BR7CBTC6 Publisher : Independently published (December 27, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.64 x 11 inches
2022 0061 | SuperHyperGraphs Amazon
ASIN : B0BR1NHY4Z Publisher : Independently published (December 24, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 117 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8371090133 Item Weight : 13 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.28 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BQXTHTXY Publisher : Independently published (December 24, 2022) Language :
English Hardcover : 117 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8371093240 Item Weight : 12.6 ounces Dimensions
: 8.25 x 0.47 x 11 inches
2022 0060 | Neut. SuperHyperEdges Amazon
ASIN : B0BNH11ZDY Publisher : Independently published (November 27, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.26 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BNGZGPP6 Publisher : Independently published (November 27, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.45 x 11 inches
2022 0059 | Neutrosophic k-Number Amazon
ASIN : B0BF3P5X4N Publisher : Independently published (September 14, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BF2XCDZM Publisher : Independently published (September 14, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.57 x 11 inches
2022 0058 | Neutrosophic Schedule Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJWJJZF Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBJLPWKH Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.35 x 11 inches
2022 0057 | Neutrosophic Wheel Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJRHXXG Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBK3KG82 Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.65 x 11 inches
2022 0056 | Neutrosophic t-partite Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJLZCHS Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBJDFGJS Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.75 x 11 inches
2022 0055 | Neutrosophic Bipartite Amazon

7093
ASIN : B0BB5Z9GHW Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBGG9RDZ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.72 x 11 inches
2022 0054 | Neutrosophic Star Amazon
ASIN : B0BB5ZHSSZ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 215 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847794374 Item Weight : 1.4 pounds Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.51 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BBC4BL9P Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.7 x 11 inches
2022 0053 | Neutrosophic Cycle Amazon
ASIN : B0BB62NZQK Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB65QMKQ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1 x 11 inches
2022 0052 | Neutrosophic Path Amazon
ASIN : B0BB67WCXL Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 315 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847730570 Item Weight : 2 pounds Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.74 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BB5Z9FXL Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.93 x 11 inches
2022 0051 | Neutrosophic Complete Amazon
ASIN : B0BB6191KN Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB5RRQN7 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.73 x 11 inches
2022 0050 | Neutrosophic Dominating Amazon
ASIN : B0BB5QV8WT Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB61WL9M Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.03 x 11 inches
2022 0049 | Neutrosophic Resolving Amazon
ASIN : B0BBCJMRH8 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBCB6DFC Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.06 x 11 inches
2022 0048 | Neutrosophic Stable Amazon

7094
ASIN : B0B7QGTNFW Publisher : Independently published (July 28, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 133 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8842880348 Item Weight : 14.6 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.32 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B7QJWQ35 Publisher : Independently published (July 28, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.51 x 11 inches
2022 0047 | Neutrosophic Total Amazon
ASIN : B0B7GLB23F Publisher : Independently published (July 25, 2022) Language : English
Paperback : 137 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8842357741 Item Weight : 14.9 ounces Dimensions : 8.5
x 0.33 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B6XVTDYC Publisher : Independently published (July 25, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.52 x 11 inches
2022 0046 | Neutrosophic Perfect Amazon
ASIN : B0B7CJHCYZ Publisher : Independently published (July 22, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.3 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B7C732Z1 Publisher : Independently published (July 22, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 127 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8842028757 Item Weight : 13.6 ounces Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.49 x 11 inches
2022 0045 | Neutrosophic Joint Set Amazon
ASIN : B0B6L8WJ77 Publisher : Independently published (July 15, 2022) Language : English
Paperback : 139 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8840802199 Item Weight : 15 ounces Dimensions : 8.5 x
0.33 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B6L9GJWR Publisher : Independently published (July 15, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.52 x 11 inches
August 30, 0044 | Neutrosophic Duality GLOBAL

2022 KNOWLEDGE -
Publishing
House&Amazon&Google
Scholar&UNM
Neutrosophic Duality, GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House:
GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131
United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0
Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing
House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf).
ASIN : B0B4SJ8Y44 Publisher : Independently published (June 22, 2022) Language : English
Paperback : 115 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8837647598 Item Weight : 12.8 ounces Dimensions : 8.5
x 0.27 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B46B4CXT Publisher : Independently published (June 22, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 115 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8837649981 Item Weight : 12.5 ounces Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.46 x 11 inches
GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House: http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf
UNM: http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf
Google Scholar: https://books.google.com/books?id=dWWkEAAAQBAJ
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B4SJ8Y44
Hardcover: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B46B4CXT
2022 0043 | Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Amazon
7095
ASIN : B0B3F2BZC4 Publisher : Independently published (June 7, 2022) Language : English

Paperback : 161 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8834894469 Item Weight : 1.08 pounds Dimensions : 8.5
x 0.38 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B3FGPGQ3 Publisher : Independently published (June 7, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.57 x 11 inches
2022 0042 | Neutrosophic Density Amazon
ASIN : B0B19CDX7W Publisher : Independently published (May 15, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.35 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B14PLPGL Publisher : Independently published (May 15, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.53 x 11 inches
2022 0041 | Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Google Commerce Ltd
Publisher Infinite Study Seller Google Commerce Ltd Published on Apr 27, 2022 Pages
30 Features Original pages Best for web, tablet, phone, eReader Language English Genres
Antiques & Collectibles / Reference Content protection This content is DRM free GooglePlay
Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Front Cover Henry
Garrett Infinite Study, 27 Apr 2022 - Antiques & Collectibles - 30 pages GoogleBooks
Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”,
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 893 10.5281/zenodo.6456413).
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf).
2022 0040 | Neutrosophic Connectivity Amazon
ASIN : B09YQJG2ZV Publisher : Independently published (April 26, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.29 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09YQJG2DZ Publisher : Independently published (April 26, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.48 x 11 inches
2022 0039 | Neutrosophic Cycles Amazon
ASIN : B09X4KVLQG Publisher : Independently published (April 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09X4LZ3HL Publisher : Independently published (April 8, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 169 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8449144157 Item Weight : 1.09 pounds Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.59 x 11 inches
2022 0038 | Girth in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09WQ5PFV8 Publisher : Independently published (March 29, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09WQQGXPZ Publisher : Independently published (March 29, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.58 x 11 inches
2022 0037 | Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09W7FT8GM Publisher : Independently published (March 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09W4HF99L Publisher : Independently published (March 22, 2022) Language :
English Hardcover : 153 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8437539057 Item Weight : 1 pounds Dimensions
: 8.25 x 0.55 x 11 inches
7096
2022 0036 | Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graph Amazon
ASIN : B09TV82Q7T Publisher : Independently published (March 7, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09TZBPWJG Publisher : Independently published (March 7, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.56 x 11 inches
2022 0035 | Independence in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09TF227GG Publisher : Independently published (February 27, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 149 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8424231681 Item Weight : 1 pounds Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.35 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09TL1LSKD Publisher : Independently published (February 27, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.54 x 11 inches
2022 0034 | Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09SW2YVKB Publisher : Independently published (February 18, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.35 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09SWLK7BG Publisher : Independently published (February 18, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.54 x 11 inches
2022 0033 | Neutrosophic Quasi-Order Amazon
ASIN : B09S3RXQ5C Publisher : Independently published (February 8, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.26 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09S232DQH Publisher : Independently published (February 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.43 x 11 inches
Jan 29, 2022 0032 | Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs E-

publishing&Amazon&Google
Scholar&UNM
Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs, E-publishing:
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States
ISBN 978-1-59973-725-6
Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: Educational
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States. ISBN: 978-1-
59973-725-6 (http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf).
ASIN : B0BBCQJQG5 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language
ASIN : B0BBC4BJZ5 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 257 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847567497 Item Weight : 1.61 pounds Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.8 x 11 inches
E-publishing: Educational Publisher: http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf
UNM: http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf
Google Scholar:https://books.google.com/books?id=cWWkEAAAQBAJ
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BBCQJQG5
Hardcover: https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Neutrosophic-Graphs-Henry-
Garrett/dp/B0BBC4BJZ5
2022 0031 | Neutrosophic Alliances Amazon

7097
ASIN : B09RB5XLVB Publisher : Independently published (January 26, 2022) Language :
: 8.5 x 0.21 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09R39MTSW Publisher : Independently published (January 26, 2022) Language :

: 8.25 x 0.4 x 11 inches
2022 0030 | Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Amazon
ASIN : B09PMBKVD4 Publisher : Independently published (January 7, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.19 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09PP8VZ3D Publisher : Independently published (January 7, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.38 x 11 inches
2022 0029 | Collections of Articles Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHHDDQK Publisher : Independently published (January 2, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.47 x 11 inches
2022 0028 | Collections of Math Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHBWT5D Publisher : Independently published (January 1, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.28 x 11 inches
2022 0027 | Collections of US Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHBT924 Publisher : Independently published (December 31, 2021) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.81 x 11 inches
2021 0026 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Amazon
ASIN : B09NRD25MG Publisher : Independently published (December 20, 2021) Language

: English Paperback : 67 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8787858174 Item Weight : 8.2 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.16 x 11 inches Language : English
-
2021 0025 | Simple Ideas Amazon
ASIN : B09MYTN6NT Publisher : Independently published (December 9, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.11 x 11 inches
-
2021 0024 | Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09MYXVNF9 Publisher : Independently published (December 7, 2021) Language

: English Paperback : 55 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8780775652 Item Weight : 7 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0023 | List Amazon
ASIN : B09M554XCL Publisher : Independently published (November 20, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.12 x 11 inches
-
7098
2021 0022 | Theorems Amazon
ASIN : B09KDZXGPR Publisher : Independently published (October 28, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.12 x 11 inches
-
2021 0021 | Dimension Amazon
ASIN : B09K2BBQG7 Publisher : Independently published (October 25, 2021) Language :

English Paperback : 55 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8753577146 Item Weight : 7 ounces Dimensions :
8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0020 | Beyond The Graph Theory Amazon
ASIN : B09KDZXGPR Publisher : Independently published (October 28, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.12 x 11 inches
-
2021 0019 | Located Heart And Memories Amazon
ASIN : B09F14PL8T Publisher : Independently published (August 31, 2021) Language :

8.5 x 0.14 x 11 inches
-
2021 0018 | Number Graphs And Numbers Amazon
ASIN : B099BQRSF8 Publisher : Independently published (July 14, 2021) Language : English
Paperback : 32 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8537474135 Item Weight : 4.8 ounces Dimensions : 8.5 x
0.08 x 11 inches
-
2021 0017 | First Place Is Reserved Amazon
ASIN : B098CWD5PT Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0016 | Detail-oriented Groups And Ideas Amazon
ASIN : B098CYYG3Q Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.17 x 11 inches
-
2021 0015 | Definition And Its Necessities Amazon
ASIN : B098DHRJFD Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.19 x 11 inches
-
2021 0014 | Words And Their Directionss Amazon
ASIN : B098CYS8G2 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

8.5 x 0.16 x 11 inches
-
2021 0013 | Tattooed Heart But Forever Amazon

7099
ASIN : B098CR8HM6 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.11 x 11 inches
-
2021 0012 | Metric Number In Dimension Amazon
ASIN : B0913597TV Publication date : March 24, 2021 Language : English File size : 28445
KB Text-to-Speech : Enabled Enhanced typesetting : Enabled X-Ray : Not Enabled Word
Wise : Not Enabled Print length : 48 pages Lending : Not Enabled Kindle
-
2021 0011 | Domination Theory And Beyond Amazon
ASIN : B098DMMZ87 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language

-
2021 0010 | Vital Glory Amazon
ASIN : B08PVNJYRM Publication date : December 6, 2020 Language : English File size
: 1544 KB Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited Text-to-Speech : Enabled Screen Reader :
Supported Enhanced typesetting : Enabled X-Ray : Not Enabled Word Wise : Enabled Print
length : 24 pages Lending : Enabled Kindle
-
2021 0009 | Análisis de modelos y orientación más allá AmazonUK&MoreBooks
Análisis de modelos y orientación más allá Planteamiento y problemas en dos modelos

Ediciones Nuestro Conocimiento (2021-04-06) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59902-
2 ISBN-10:6203599026EAN:9786203599022Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:El enfoque para la
resolución de problemas es una selección obvia para hacer la investigación y el análisis de la
situación que puede provocar las perspectivas vagas que queremos no ser para extraer ideas
creativas y nuevas que queremos ser. Estudio simultáneamente dos modelos. Este estudio se
basa tanto en la investigación como en la discusión que el autor piensa que puede ser útil
para entender y hacer crecer nuestra fantası́a y la realidad juntas.Publishing house: Ediciones
Nuestro Conocimiento Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett
Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90
Keywords:Dos modelos, optimización de rutas y transporte, Two Models, Optimizing Routes
and Transportation
MoreBooks
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/análisis-de-modelos-y-orientación-más-
allá/isbn/978-620-3-59902-2
Product details Publisher : Ediciones Nuestro Conocimiento (6 April 2021) Language :
Spanish ISBN-10 : 6203599026 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599022 Dimensions : 15 x 0.4 x 22 cm
Paperback:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Análisis-modelos-orientación-allá-Planteamiento/dp/6203599026
2021 0008 | Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами Amazon&MoreBooks

7100
Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами Подход и проблемы в двух моде-
лях Sciencia Scripts (2021-04-06) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59908-4 ISBN-
10:6203599085EAN:9786203599084Book language: Russian Blurb/Shorttext:Подход к реше-
нию проблем является очевидным выбором для проведения исследований и анализа си-
туации, которая может вызвать смутные перспективы, которыми мы не хотим быть для
извлечения творческих и новых идей, которыми мы хотим быть. Я одновременно изучаю
две модели. Это исследование основано как на исследовании, так и на обсуждении, кото-
рое, по мнению автора, может быть полезным для понимания и развития наших фантазий
и реальности вместе.Publishing house: Sciencia Scripts Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com
By (author) : Генри Гарретт Number of pages:68Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available
Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Две модели, оптимизация маршрутов и
транспорта, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/анализ-моделей-и-руководство-за-
пределами/isbn/978-620-3-59908-4
Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами: Подход и проблемы в двух моделях

(Russian Edition) Publisher : Sciencia Scripts (April 6, 2021) Language : Russian Paperback :
68 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599085 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599084 Item Weight : 5.3 ounces Dimensions
: 5.91 x 0.16 x 8.66 inches
2021 0007 | Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além Abordagem e Problemas em Dois Modelos Edições
Nosso Conhecimento (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59907-7 ISBN-
10:6203599077EAN:9786203599077Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:A abordagem para resolver
problemas é uma seleção óbvia para fazer pesquisa e análise da situação, que pode trazer
as perspectivas vagas que queremos não ser para extrair idéias criativas e novas idéias que
queremos ser. Eu estudo simultaneamente dois modelos. Este estudo é baseado tanto na
pesquisa como na discussão que o autor pensa que pode ser útil para compreender e fazer crescer
juntos a nossa fantasia e realidade.Publishing house: Edições Nosso Conhecimento Website:
https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published
on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Dois Modelos,
Otimização de Rotas e Transporte, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/análise-e-orientação-de-modelos-
além/isbn/978-620-3-59907-7
Henry Garrett Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além (Paperback) About this item
Product details
A abordagem para resolver problemas é uma seleção óbvia para fazer pesquisa e análise da
situação, que pode trazer as perspectivas vagas que queremos não ser para extrair idéias
criativas e novas idéias que queremos ser. Eu estudo simultaneamente dois modelos. Este
estudo é baseado tanto na pesquisa como na discussão que o autor pensa que pode ser útil
para compreender e fazer crescer juntos a nossa fantasia e realidade. Análise e Orientação de
Modelos Além (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product information. Manufacturers,
suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not verified it. See our disclaimer
Specifications
Language Portuguese Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number
of Pages 64 Author Henry Garrett Title Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além ISBN-13
9786203599077 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00
x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599077 Walmart
Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além: Abordagem e Problemas em Dois Modelos

(Portuguese Edition) Publisher : Edições Nosso Conhecimento (April 6, 2021) Language :
Portuguese Paperback : 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599077 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599077 Item Weight
: 3.67 ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0006 | Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza Amazon&MoreBooks

7101
Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza Podejście i problemy w dwóch
modelach Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-
59906-0 ISBN-10:6203599069EAN:9786203599060Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:Podejście do
rozwia˛zywania problemów jest oczywistym wyborem do prowadzenia badań i analizowania
sytuacji, które moga˛ wywo lywać niejasne perspektywy, których nie chcemy dla wydobycia
kreatywnych i nowych pomys lów, które chcemy. I jednocześnie studiować dwa modele.
Badanie to oparte jest zarówno na badaniach jak i dyskusji, które zdaniem autora moga˛
być przydatne do zrozumienia i rozwoju naszych fantazji i rzeczywistości razem.Publishing
house: Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry
Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics
Price:39.90 Keywords:Dwa modele, optymalizacja tras i transportu, Two Models, Optimizing
Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/analizy-modelowe-i-wytyczne-wykraczaja˛ce-
poza/isbn/978-620-3-59906-0
Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza: Podejście i problemy w dwóch modelach
(Polish Edition) Publisher : Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza (April 6, 2021) Language : Polish
Paperback : 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599069 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599060 Item Weight : 3.67
ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0005 | Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna Amazon&MoreBooks
Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna Aanpak en problemen in twee modellen

Uitgeverij Onze Kennis (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59905-3
ISBN-10:6203599050EAN:9786203599053Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:De aanpak voor het
oplossen van problemen is een voor de hand liggende keuze voor het doen van onderzoek en het
analyseren van de situatie die de vage perspectieven kan oproepen die we niet willen zijn voor
het extraheren van creatieve en nieuwe ideeën die we willen zijn. Ik bestudeer tegelijkertijd twee
modellen. Deze studie is gebaseerd op zowel onderzoek als discussie waarvan de auteur denkt dat
ze nuttig kunnen zijn voor het begrijpen en laten groeien van onze fantasieën en de werkelijkheid
samen.Publishing house: Uitgeverij Onze Kennis Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By
(author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category:
Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Twee modellen, optimalisering van routes en transport,
Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna: Aanpak en problemen in twee modellen (Dutch
Edition) Publisher : Uitgeverij Onze Kennis (April 6, 2021) Language : Dutch Paperback : 64
pages ISBN-10 : 6203599050 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599053 Item Weight : 3.99 ounces Dimensions
: 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0004 | Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
7102
Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre Approccio e problemi in due modelli Edizioni
Sapienza (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59904-6 ISBN-
10:6203599042EAN:9786203599046Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:L’approccio per risolvere
i problemi è una selezione ovvia per fare ricerca e analisi della situazione che può suscitare
le prospettive vaghe che non vogliamo essere per estrarre idee creative e nuove che vogliamo
essere. Studio contemporaneamente due modelli. Questo studio si basa sia sulla ricerca che
sulla discussione che l’autore pensa possa essere utile per capire e far crescere insieme la nostra
fantasia e la realtà.Publishing house: Edizioni Sapienza Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com
By (author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:60Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available
Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Due modelli, ottimizzazione dei percorsi e del
trasporto, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks Henry Garrett Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre (Paperback) About this item
Product details
L’approccio per risolvere i problemi è una selezione ovvia per fare ricerca e analisi della
situazione che può suscitare le prospettive vaghe che non vogliamo essere per estrarre idee
creative e nuove che vogliamo essere. Studio contemporaneamente due modelli. Questo studio
si basa sia sulla ricerca che sulla discussione che l’autore pensa possa essere utile per capire e far
crescere insieme la nostra fantasia e la realtà. Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre (Paperback) We
aim to show you accurate product information. Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide
what you see here, and we have not verified it. See our disclaimer Specifications
Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number of Pages 60 Author
Henry Garrett Title Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre ISBN-13 9786203599046 Publication Date
April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00 x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10
6203599042 Walmart
Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre: Approccio e problemi in due modelli (Italian Edition)
Publisher : Edizioni Sapienza (April 6, 2021) Language : Italian Paperback : 60 pages ISBN-10
: 6203599042 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599046 Item Weight : 3.53 ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.14 x
8.66 inches
2021 0003 | Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà Approche et problèmes dans deux
modèles Editions Notre Savoir (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher eligible for voucher
ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59903-9 ISBN-10:6203599034EAN:9786203599039Book language: French
Blurb/Shorttext:L’approche pour résoudre les problèmes est une sélection évidente pour faire
la recherche et l’analyse de la situation qui peut éliciter les perspectives vagues que nous ne
voulons pas être pour extraire des idées créatives et nouvelles que nous voulons être. J’étudie
simultanément deux modèles. Cette étude est basée à la fois sur la recherche et la discussion,
ce qui, selon l’auteur, peut être utile pour comprendre et développer nos fantasmes et la réalité
ensemble.Publishing house: Editions Notre Savoir Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By
(author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category:
Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation, Deux
modèles, optimisation des itinéraires et des transports
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/analyses-de-modèles-et-orientations-au-
delà/isbn/978-620-3-59903-9
Henry Garrett Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà (Paperback) About this item
Product details
L’approche pour résoudre les problèmes est une sélection évidente pour faire la recherche et
l’analyse de la situation qui peut éliciter les perspectives vagues que nous ne voulons pas être
pour extraire des idées créatives et nouvelles que nous voulons être. J’étudie simultanément
deux modèles. Cette étude est basée à la fois sur la recherche et la discussion, ce qui, selon
l’auteur, peut être utile pour comprendre et développer nos fantasmes et la réalité ensemble.
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product
information. Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not
verified it. See our disclaimer Specifications
Language French Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number of
Pages 64 Author Henry Garrett Title Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà ISBN-13
9786203599039 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00
x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599034 Walmart
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà: Approche et problèmes dans deux modèles

(French Edition) Publisher : Editions Notre Savoir (April 6, 2021) Language : French Paperback
: 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599034 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599039 Item Weight : 3.67 ounces
Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
7103
2021 0002 | Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus Amazon | MoreBooks |
Walmart | eBay
eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59901-5 ISBN-
10:6203599018EAN:9786203599015Book language: German Blurb/Shorttext:Die
Herangehensweise zur Lösung von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl für die
Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen,
für die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann.
Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als
auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt, dass sie für das Verständnis und das
Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realität nützlich sein kann.Publishing house: Verlag
Unser Wissen Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett Number
of pages:68Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90
Keywords:Zwei Modelle, Optimierung von Routen und Transport, Two Models, Optimizing
Routes and Transportation
MoreBooksHenry Garrett Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus (Paperback)
About this item
Product details
Die Herangehensweise zur Lösung von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl für die
Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen,
für die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann.
Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als
auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt, dass sie für das Verständnis und das
Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realität nützlich sein kann. Modell-Analysen und
Anleitungen darüber hinaus (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product information.
Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not verified it.
See our disclaimer Specifications
Language German Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number
of Pages 68 Author Henry Garrett Title Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus
ISBN-13 9786203599015 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W
x H) 9.00 x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599018
Walmart
Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing. Item specifics Condition: New: A new, unread,
unused book in perfect condition with no missing or damaged pages. See the ... Read
moreabout the condition ISBN: 9786203599015 EAN: 9786203599015 Publication Year: 2021
Type: Textbook Format: Paperback Language: German Publication Name: Modell-Analysen
Und Anleitungen Daruber Hinaus Item Height: 229mm Author: Henry Garrett Publisher:
Verlag Unser Wissen Item Width: 152mm Subject: Mathematics Item Weight: 113g Number of
Pages: 68 Pages About this product Product Information Die Herangehensweise zur Loesung
von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl fur die Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die
die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen, fur die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen
Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann. Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese
Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt,
dass sie fur das Verstandnis und das Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realitat nutzlich
sein kann. Product Identifiers Publisher Verlag Unser Wissen ISBN-13 9786203599015 eBay
Product ID (ePID) 11049032082 Product Key Features Publication Name Modell-Analysen
Und Anleitungen Daruber Hinaus Format Paperback Language German Subject Mathematics
Publication Year 2021 Type Textbook Author Henry Garrett Number of Pages 68 Pages
Dimensions Item Height 229mm Item Width 152mm Item Weight 113g Additional Product
Features Title_Author Henry Garrett
eBay
Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus: Ansatz und Probleme in zwei Modellen
(German Edition) Publisher : Verlag Unser Wissen (April 6, 2021) Language : German
Paperback : 68 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599018 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599015 Item Weight : 3.99
ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.16 x 8.66 inches Paperback
2021 0001 | Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond Amazon&MoreBooks

7104
Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond Approach and Problems in Two Models LAP
LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2020-12-02 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-19506-
4 ISBN-10:6203195065EAN:9786203195064Book language: English Blurb/Shorttext:Approach
for solving problems is an obvious selection for doing research and analysis the situation
which may elicit the vague perspectives which we want not to be for extracting creative
and new ideas which we want to be. I simultaneously study two models. This study is based
both research and discussion which the author thinks that may be useful for understanding
and growing our fantasizing and reality together.Publishing house: LAP LAMBERT
Academic Publishing Website: https://www.lap-publishing.com/ By (author) : Henry Garrett
Number of pages:52Published on:2020-12-02Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90
Keywords:Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond: Approach and Problems in Two Models Publisher :
LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (December 2, 2020) Language : English Paperback : 52
pages ISBN-10 : 6203195065 ISBN-13 : 978-6203195064 Item Weight : 3.39 ounces Dimensions
: 5.91 x 0.12 x 8.66 inches
7105
Participating in Seminars
I’ve participated in all virtual conferences which are listed below [Some of them without selective process].
–https://web.math.princeton.edu/ pds/onlinetalks/talks.html
...
Also, I’ve participated in following events [Some of them without selective process]:
-The Hidden NORMS seminar

-Talk Math With Your Friends (TMWYF)
-MATHEMATICS COLLOQUIUM: https://www.csulb.edu/mathematics-statistics/mathematics-colloquium
-Lathisms: Cafe Con Leche
-Big Math network
...
I’m in mailing list in following [Some of them without selective process] organizations:
-[Algebraic-graph-theory] AGT Seminar (lists-uwaterloo-ca)

-Combinatorics Lectures Online (https://web.math.princeton.edu/ pds/onlinetalks/talks.html)
-Women in Combinatorics
-CMSA-Seminar (unsw-au)
-OURFA2M2 Online Undergraduate Resource Fair for the Advancement and Alliance of Marginalized Mathematicians
...
7106
Social Accounts
I’ve listed my accounts below.
-My website [Covering all my contributions containing articles and books as free access to download with PDF
extension and more]: https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com
-Amazon [Some of my all books, here]: https://www.amzn.com/author/drhenrygarrett
-Twitter: @DrHenryGarrett (www.twitter.com/DrHenryGarrett)
– ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henry-Garrett-2
-Academia: https://independent.academia.edu/drhenrygarrett/
-Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/user/596815491/Henry-Garrett
-Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=enuser=SUjFCmcAAAAJviewo p = listw orkssortby = pubdate
− LinkedIn : https : //www.linkedin.com/in/drhenrygarrett/

7107
References
2017-2022 Dr. Henry Garrett WEBSITE
Department of Mathematics, Independent Researcher, Manhattan, NY, USA.

E-mail address: DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com
2017-2022 Dr. Henry Garrett WEBSITE
Department of Mathematics, Independent Researcher, Manhattan, NY, USA.

E-mail address: HenryGarrettNY@gmail.com
DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com · Twitter.com/DrHenryGarrett

Failed SuperHyperClique

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failed SuperHyperClique

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Vertex not to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed 27

maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic 33

of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 58

perWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 69

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 114

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed 137

maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic 143

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 177

all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperClique .] Failed SuperHyperClique . A graph is 183

cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 212

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, Cancer’s 223

Neutrosophic Recognition 224

AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 225

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 231

Article #116 238

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

discussion and literature reviews about them. 296

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in 297

implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms 314

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [HG9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 340

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [HG12] by Henry Garrett 346

“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and 352

SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG20] 364

(2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutro- 369

Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving 375

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

and SuperHyperGraph. 380

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

[1] Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyper- 397

odo.6456413). (http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). (ht- 399

and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” 408

[6] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions 416

[8] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To 422

Preprints 2023, 2023010044 424

Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 430

[12] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring 434

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2022, 2022120549 (doi: 435

[14] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 441

[15] Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 444

Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 446

[16] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic Super- 447

warding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 451

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 461

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

[22] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 465

SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 466

[23] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To 468

[30] F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to Plithogenic n- 488

SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary (Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) Hyper- 489

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

| Book #68 503

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Failed SuperHyperClique (Published Version) 530