New Ideas On Super Disruptions in Cancer's Extreme Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hyper Plans Called SuperHyperConnectivities

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368275564
New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer's Extreme Recognition As

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called
SuperHyperConnectivities
Preprint · February 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
280 PUBLICATIONS 2,650 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
On Fuzzy Logic View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 04 February 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 2
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper 3
Plans Called SuperHyperConnectivities 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
ABSTRACT 8
In this research, [Extreme Strength of the Extreme SuperHyperPaths] Assume a 9
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). an Extreme 10
SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Extreme 11
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and 12
Extreme SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs , have Extreme 13
t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; Extreme i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; Extreme 14
f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; Extreme strength 15
(min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . [Different Extreme Types of Extreme 16
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 17
ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider an Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 18
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called Extreme t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum 19
number of Extreme t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme 20
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 21
1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Extreme i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Extreme i-strength of 22
SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Extreme 23
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Extreme f-connective if F (E) ≥ 24
maximum number of Extreme f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme 25
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 26
1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Extreme connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of Extreme 27
strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to 28
Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. ((Extreme) 29
SuperHyperConnectivities). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 30
an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider an Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 31
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s 32
either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and 33
Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 34
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 35
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive 36
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 37
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme 38
SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, 39
Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 41
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 42
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 43
form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 44
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, 45
Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for an Neutrosophic 46
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 47
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 48
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 49
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 50
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and 51
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; an Extreme 52
SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, 53
Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for 54
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 55
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 56
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 57
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 58
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 59
SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 60
coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Extreme 61
t-connective, Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and 62
C(N SHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 63
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 64
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 65
SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of 67
Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and Extreme 68
connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 69
maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 70
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges 71
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 72
SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities 73
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, 74
Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for an Neutrosophic 75
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 78
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 79
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and 80
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; an Extreme 81
SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, 82
Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for 83
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 84
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 85
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an 86
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 87
SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 89
coefficient. In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, 90
namely, a SuperHyperConnectivities and Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Two 91
different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes 92
further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 93
on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 94
whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 95
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 96
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 97
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 98
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 99
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges 100
make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are 101
viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them are 102
individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all 103
officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called 104
“SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic 105
SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. 106
Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on 107
theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue 108
this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions and some 109
problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 110
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 111
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s 112
no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to 113
have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 114
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 116
Extreme SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in 117
an Extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an 118
Extreme SuperHyperVertex in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge; an Extreme 119
SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 120
coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 122
high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a 123
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a 124
SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; an Extreme 125
SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 126
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality Extreme 129
SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in an 130
Extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an Extreme 131
SuperHyperVertex in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge and the Extreme power is Extremely 132
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities 133
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that 135
there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 136
SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an Extreme 137
R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 138
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 139
of high Extreme cardinality Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no Extreme 140
SuperHyperVertex not to in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Extreme 141
SuperHyperEdge to have an Extreme SuperHyperVertex in an Extreme 142
SuperHyperEdge; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial 143
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 144
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum 145
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that 146
there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no 147
SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is 148
corresponded to its coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities 149
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 150
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 151
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 152
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality Extreme SuperHyperVertices 153
such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge 154
and there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an Extreme SuperHyperVertex in an 155
Extreme SuperHyperEdge and the Extreme power is Extremely corresponded to its 156
Extreme coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then δ−SuperHyperConnectivities 157
is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality such that either of 158
the following expressions hold for the (Extreme) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors 159
of s ∈ S : there are |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and 160
|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is an 161
δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 162
δ−SuperHyperDefensive; an Extreme δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a maximal 163
Extreme of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Extreme cardinality such that either 164
of the following expressions hold for the Extreme cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors 165
of s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|Extreme > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|Extreme + δ; 166
and |S ∩ N (s)|Extreme < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|Extreme + δ. The first Expression, holds if S 167
is an Extreme δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 168
Extreme δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Extreme” version of a 169
SuperHyperConnectivities . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 170
SuperHyperConnectivities more understandable. For the sake of having Extreme 171
SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 172
“SuperHyperConnectivities ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 173
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 174
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 175
SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s redefined an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if the 176
mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 177
HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 178
with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 179
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 180
“The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 181
HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 182
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 183
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 184
based on a SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 185
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 186
have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperConnectivities, then it’s 187
officially called a “SuperHyperConnectivities” but otherwise, it isn’t a 188
SuperHyperConnectivities . There are some instances about the clarifications for the 189
main definition titled a “SuperHyperConnectivities ”. These two examples get more 190
scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 191
SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperConnectivities . For the sake of having an 192
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 193
“Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” and a “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities ”. The 194
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 195
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 196
assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 197
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a 198
SuperHyperConnectivities are redefined to a “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” if 199
the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Extreme” version of SuperHyperClasses. 200
Since there’s more ways to get Extreme type-results to make an Extreme 201
SuperHyperConnectivities more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 202
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Extreme SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table 203
holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, 204
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Extreme 205
SuperHyperPath”, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Extreme SuperHyperStar”, 206
“Extreme SuperHyperBipartite”, “Extreme SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Extreme 207
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Extreme 208
SuperHyperConnectivities” where it’s the strongest [the maximum Extreme value from 209
all the SuperHyperConnectivities amid the maximum value amid all 210
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperConnectivities .] SuperHyperConnectivities . A 211
graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements 212
of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There 213
are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one 214
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 215
SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 216
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 217
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 218
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 219
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 220
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 221
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 222
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 223
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 224
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 225
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 226
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 227
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 228
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 229
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 230
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 231
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Extreme”. In the 232
future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 233
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 234
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 235
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 236
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 237
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 238
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 239
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 240
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 241
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 242
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 243
cells could be fantasized by an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, 244
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 245
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperConnectivities or the strongest 246
SuperHyperConnectivities in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. For the longest 247
SuperHyperConnectivities, called SuperHyperConnectivities, and the strongest 248
SuperHyperConnectivities, called Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, some general 249
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths 250
have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 251
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t 252
any formation of any SuperHyperConnectivities but literarily, it’s the deformation of 253
any SuperHyperConnectivities. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 254
familiarity with Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities theory, SuperHyperGraphs theory, 255
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 256
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, (Extreme) SuperHyperConnectivities, 257
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition 258
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 259
1 Background 260
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 261
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 262
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 263
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 264
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 265
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 266
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 267
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 268
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 269
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 270
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 271
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 272
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 273
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 274
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 275
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 276
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 277
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 278
majority of notions. 279
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 280
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 281
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 282
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 283
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 284
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 285
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 286
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 287
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 288
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 289
based on initial background. 290
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 291
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 292
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 293
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 294
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 295
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 296
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 297
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 298
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 299
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 300
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 301
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 302
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 303
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 304
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 305
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 306
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 307
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 308
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 309
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 310
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 311
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 312
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 313
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 314
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 315
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 316
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 317
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 318
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 319
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 320
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 321
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 322
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 323
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 324
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 325
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 326
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 327
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 328
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 329
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 330
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 331
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 332
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 333
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 334
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 335
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 336
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 337
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 338
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 339
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 340
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 341
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 342
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 343
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 344
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 345
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 346
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 347
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 348
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 349
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 350
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 351
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 352
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 353
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 354
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 355
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 356
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 357
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 358
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 359
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 360
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 361
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 362
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 363
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 364
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 365
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 366
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 367
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 368
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 369
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 370
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 371
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 372
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 373
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 374
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 375
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 376
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 377
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 378
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 379
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 380
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 381
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 382
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 383
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 384
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 385
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 386
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 387
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 388
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 389
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 390
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 391
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 392
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 393
Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 394
than 2732 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 395
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 396
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 397
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 398
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 399
in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 400
than 3504 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 401
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 402
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 403
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 404
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 405
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 406
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 407
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 408
See the seminal researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the framework 409
of Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities theory, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities 410
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–38]. Two popular research 411
books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 2638 and 3363 respectively, on 412
neutrosophic science is on [39, 40]. 413
2 Motivation and Contributions 414
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 415
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 416
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 417
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 418
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 419
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 420
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 421
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 422
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 423
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 424
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 425
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 426
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 427
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 428
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 429
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 430
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 431
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 432
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 433
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 434
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 435
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 436
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 437
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 438
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 439
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 440
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 441
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 442
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 443
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 444
formally called “ SuperHyperConnectivities” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 445
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 446
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 447
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 448
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 449
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 450
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 451
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 452
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 453
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 454
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 455
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 456
Extreme Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, 457
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 458
either the optimal SuperHyperConnectivities or the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 459
in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that 460
in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two 461
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 462
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t any 463
formation of any SuperHyperConnectivities but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 464
SuperHyperConnectivities. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 465
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 466
find the “ amount of SuperHyperConnectivities” of either individual of cells or the 467
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 468
of SuperHyperConnectivities” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 469
group of cells? 470
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 471
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 472
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 473
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 474
SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” on 475
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 476
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 477
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 478
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 479
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 480
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 481
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 482
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 483
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 484
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 485
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 486
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 487
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperConnectivities and 488
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, are figured out in sections “ 489
SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. In the sense of 490
tackling on getting results and in order to make sense about continuing the research, the 491
ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as 492
their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s 493
done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 494
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 495
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 496
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 497
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 498
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 499
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 500
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 501
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 502
SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Results on 503
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 504
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 505
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 506
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperConnectivities”. 507
The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 508
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 509
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 510
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 511
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 512
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 513
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 514
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 515
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 516
3 Preliminaries 517
In this section, the basic material in this research, is referred to [Single Valued 518
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 519
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.5,p.2), 520
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 521
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 522
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 523
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [38],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 524
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 525
(Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 526
to Ref. [38]. 527
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. 528
Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 529
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.1,p.1). 530
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 531
+
]− 0, 1 [. 532
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2). 533
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A

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

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [38],Definition 534
2.5,p.2). 535
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 536
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 537
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 538
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 539
1, 2, . . . , n); 540
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 541
V; 542
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 543
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 544
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 545
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 546
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 547
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 548
(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 . 549
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 550
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 551
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 552
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 553
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 554
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 555
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 556
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 557
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 558
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 559
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 560
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 561
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 562
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 563
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 564
could be characterized as follow-up items. 565
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 566
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 567
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 568
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 569
HyperEdge; 570
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 571
SuperEdge; 572
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 573
SuperHyperEdge. 574
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 575
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 576
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3). 577
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 578
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 579
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 580
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 581
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 582
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 583
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

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

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 584
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 585
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 586
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 587
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 588
1, 2, . . . , n); 589
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 590
V; 591
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 592
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 593
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 594
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 595
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 596
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 597
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 598
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 599
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 600
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 601
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 602
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 603
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 604
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 605
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 606
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 607
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 608
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 611
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 612
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 614
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 615
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 616
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 617
HyperEdge; 618
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 619
SuperEdge; 620
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 621
SuperHyperEdge. 622
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 623
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 624
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 625
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 626
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 627
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 628
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 629
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 630
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 631
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 632
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 633
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 634
given SuperHyperEdges; 635
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 636
SuperHyperEdges; 637
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 638
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 639
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 640
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 641
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 642
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 643
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 644
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 645
common SuperVertex. 646
Definition 3.14. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

(NSHG) S. Then a sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from 647
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 648
(NSHV) Vs if either of following conditions hold: 649
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 650
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 651
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 652
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 653
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 654
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 655
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 656
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 657
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 658
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 659
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 660
SuperHyperPaths). 661
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

a Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is
sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 663
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 664
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 665
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 666
SuperHyperPath . 667
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 668
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

A Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
(NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have 670
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 671
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 672
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 673
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 674
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 675
(NSHE)). (Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). 676
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 678
called 679
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 680
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 681
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 682
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 683
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 684
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 686
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 687
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 689
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 690
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 691
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 692
Definition 3.18. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnectivities). 693
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 695
called 696
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic 697
t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and 698
Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 699
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 700
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 701
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 702
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; 703
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic 704
Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 706
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 707
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 708
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 709
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 710
SuperHyperConnectivities; 711
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 712
either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic 713
f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 714
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 715
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 716
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 717
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 718
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 719
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 720
Extreme coefficient; 721
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if 722
it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic 723
f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 724
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 725
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 726
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 727
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 728
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 729
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Neutrosophic 730
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 731
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic 732
Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 734
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 735
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 736
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 737
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; 738
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic 739
Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 741
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 742
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 743
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 744
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 745
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 747
either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic 748
f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 749
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 750
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 751
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 752
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 753
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 754
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 755
Extreme coefficient; 756
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if 757
it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic 758
f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 759
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 760
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 761
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 762
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 763
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 764
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Neutrosophic 765
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 766
Definition 3.19. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperConnectivities). 767
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 768
(i) an δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 769
SuperHyperConnectivities such that either of the following expressions hold for 770
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 771
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 772
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 773
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic kind of 774
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities such that either of the following 775
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 776
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 777
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 778
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 779
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 780
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to 781
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 782
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 783
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 784
Definition 3.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 785
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 786
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 787
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 788
understandable. 789

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.21)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 790
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus Neutrosophic 791
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 792
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic 793
SuperHyperPath , Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, Neutrosophic 794
SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic 795
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table 796
(2) holds. 797
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 798
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 799
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities more Neutrosophicly understandable. 800
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to 801
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. The 802
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 803
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 804
assign to the values. 805
Definition 3.22. Assume a SuperHyperConnectivities. It’s redefined a 806
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if the Table (3) holds. 807
4 Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 808
The Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. 809
Thus the non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, S is up. The Extreme 810
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, is: S is an Extreme 811
SuperHyperSet, is: S does includes only more than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 812
a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention 813
that the Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 814
“Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” 815
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Extreme type-SuperHyperSets 816
called the 817
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in the Extreme Example (4.1)
SuperHyperConnectivities, 818
is only and only S in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 819
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. But all only obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] 820
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Extreme 821
SuperHyperConnectivities amid those type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected 822
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as a linearly-over-packed 823
SuperHyperModel is featured on the Figures. 824
Example 4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 825
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 826
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 827
SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme 828
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an 829
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, 830
there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme 831
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme 832
SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 833
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 834
SuperHyperConnectivities. 835
C(N SHG) = {E4 } is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

C(N SHG) = z is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {Vi }i6=3 is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 3z is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
836
SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme 838
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 839
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, 840
namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that 841

there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the 842
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 843
C(N SHG) = {E4 } is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

C(N SHG) = z is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {Vi }i6=3 is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 3z is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
845
SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme 847
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an 848
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, 849
there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme 850
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme 851
SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 852
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 853
SuperHyperConnectivities. {V4 , E4 , V1 , E2 , V1 } is the optimal Extreme 854
SuperHyperConnectivities since the E2 is a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge, then 855
it could be used twice in the consecutive sequence but the usages of the Extreme 856
SuperHyperEdges are once in every consecutive sequence with the exceptions on 857
the loop Extreme SuperHyperEdges. It’s with interesting to mention that there’s 858
no restrictions and no conditions by the times of the usages of Extreme 859
SuperHyperVertices since the restrictions and the conditions by the times of the 860
usages of Extreme SuperHyperEdges imply the times of the usages of Extreme 861
SuperHyperVertices is once in any given consecutive sequence with the exceptions 862
on the loop Extreme SuperHyperEdges that only imply the times of the usages of 863
Extreme SuperHyperVertices is twice in any given consecutive sequence. To sum 864

them up, in every consecutive sequence, the times of the usages of Extreme 865
SuperHyperVertices is once if they’ve not been corresponded to the loop Extreme 866
SuperHyperEdges, the times of the usages of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is twice 867
if they’ve been corresponded to the loop Extreme SuperHyperEdges, and the 868
times of the usages of Extreme SuperHyperEdges is once if either they’ve been 869
corresponded to the loop Extreme SuperHyperEdges or not. 870
C(N SHG) = {E4 , E2 } is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

CExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial (N SHG) = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG) = {Vi , V1 , Vi }i6=3 is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
CExtreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial (N SHG) = 3z 3 .
871
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperConnectivities, is 872
up. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on 873
{F }, and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside 874
E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. 875
C(N SHG) = {V3 , E1 , V4 , E2 , H, E1 , V3 } is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

C(N SHG) = 4z 3 is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V3 , V4 , H, V3 } is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 4z 4 is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme 876
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 877
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme 878
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 879

Is the Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 880
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 881

Is a Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 883
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 884
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 885
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one 886
Extreme consecutive sequence of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices and the 887
Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities but 888
it has either all Extreme SuperHyperEdges or all Extreme SuperHyperVertices 889
and in this case, it has all Extreme SuperHyperEdges. There’s no Extreme 890
SuperHyperConnectivities such that it has all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 891
There are less than only four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 892
Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme 893
SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. The obvious simple Extreme 894
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme 895
SuperHyperSet includes only less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But 896
the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 897

Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 899
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 900
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. To sum them up, the Extreme 901
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 902

Isn’t the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 903
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 904

Is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic 906
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 907
SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one Extreme 908
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and Extreme 909
SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, but it has 910
either all Extreme SuperHyperEdges or all Extreme SuperHyperVertices and in 911
this case, it has all Extreme SuperHyperEdges. There’s no Extreme 912
SuperHyperConnectivities such that it has all Extreme SuperHyperVertices, given 913
by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet; and it’s called the Extreme 914
SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s a Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 915
Since it has the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 916
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that 917
there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 918
SuperHyperVertices and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme 919
SuperHyperConnectivities but it has either all Extreme SuperHyperEdges or all 920
Extreme SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has all Extreme 921
SuperHyperEdges. There are only less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices 922
inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 923

Thus the obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, 924

Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 925
SuperHyperConnectivities, is: 926

Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, is: 927

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 928
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 929
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 930
called the 933
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, 934
is only and only 935

• On the Figure (5), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is 936
up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 937
following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple 938
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 939
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities = {V5 , E1 , V4 , E4 , V5 }.

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









called the 997

up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. 1001
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi , Ei , Vi+1 }21

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

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

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
There are more than only four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1018
SuperHyperConnectivities is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1020
called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1021
includes only less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1022

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

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1028

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
SuperHyperEdges. There aren’t only less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1047

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, 1049

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1050

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

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Doesn’t include only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1053
called the 1058

i=1 ∪ {V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E

{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
up. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme 1062
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1063
of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1064
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1065
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivities =
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
There are more than only four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1082
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
called the 1122
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme 1127
of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet 1129
of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the Extreme 1130
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme 1131
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1132
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivities = {}
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
Does has less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1155
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is up. To sum them up, the Extreme 1157

called the 1189

In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1192
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 1193
following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple 1196
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s 1197
no coverage on either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the 1198
quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this 1199
item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied 1200
totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all 1201
SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms 1202
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities 1203
SuperHyperPolynomial, Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities, and 1204
Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial are up even 1205
neither of the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the 1206
context are about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is 1207
quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for 1208
the convenient usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other 1209
applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of 1210
expressions. 1211
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , Vi , V16 , V1 }6i=2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
There aren’t less than only four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the 1232
intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme 1233
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
called the 1272
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of 1275
highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 1276
of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s no coverage on either all 1281
SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the quasi-discussion on the 1282
intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this item are referred to the 1283
prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen and applied totally but somehow the 1284
coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of all SuperHyperVertices or all 1285
SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms Extreme 1286
SuperHyperConnectivities, Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities 1287
SuperHyperPolynomial, Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities, and 1288
Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial are up even 1289
neither of the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the 1290
context are about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is 1291
quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for 1292
the convenient usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other 1293
applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of 1294
expressions. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme 1295
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
Is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1304
Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 1309
There are not only four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1310
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities given by that 1328
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and 1329
it’s an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s 1330
Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and 1333
There are not only less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the 1335
intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1336
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1343
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1345
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense 1348
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 1349
Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1352
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
SuperHyperConnectivities, is not: 1395
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, is not: 1396
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1404
of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s only one Extreme 1409
SuperHyperEdges between any given Extreme amount of Extreme 1410
SuperHyperVertices. Thus there isn’t any Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities at 1411
all. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme 1412
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }6i=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1472
SuperHyperConnectivities. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme 1473
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0

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









In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1583
this Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme graph G : (V, E) 1584
thus the notions in both settings are coincided. 1585

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










In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that 1644
this Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme graph G : (V, E) 1645
thus the notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected Neutrosophic 1646
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On 1647
the Figure (15). 1648
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V8 , E3 , V9 , E4 , V8 }.

1655


1656

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V8 , V9 , V8 }.
1657

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

1663

1664

1665

1666


1670

1671

1672

1673


1687

1688

1689

1690


1695

1696

1697

1698


1702

1703

1704

1705

There are only less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1717
Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1718

1719

1720

1721

1722


1724

1725

1726

1727


1730

1731

1732

1733


1741

1742

1743

1744


1752

1753

1754

1755


1761

1762

1763

1764


1768

1769

1770

1771


1785

1786

1787

1788


1793

1794

1795

1796


1800

1801

1802

1803


1817

1818

1819

1820


1822

1823

1824

1825


1828

1829

1830

1831


1839

1840

1841

1842


1850

1851


C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 322 .
1852


1858

1859

1860

1861


1865

1866

1867

1868


1882

1883

1884

1885


1890

1891

1892

1893


1897

1898

1899

1900

erHyperGirth C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 1901
the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] 1902
such that there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1903
SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1905
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s an Extreme 1906
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s 1907

1914

1915

1916

1917


1919

1920

1921

1922


1925

1926

1927

1928



1936

1937

1938







SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1974
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 1975




up. 1999
Proposition 4.2. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2000
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 2001
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least 2002
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme 2003
type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of 2004

Figure 4. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperConnectivi-

ties in the Example (4.1)





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

tivities in the Example (4.1)










Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2005
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 } isn’t an 2006
Extreme quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities since neither Extreme amount of 2007
Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor Extreme amount of Extreme SuperHyperVertices where 2008
Extreme amount refers to the Extreme number of Extreme 2009
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any Extreme kind of 2010
Extreme consecutive consequence as the Extreme icon and Extreme generator of the 2011
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in the terms of the Extreme longest form. Let us 2012
consider the Extreme SuperHyperSet 2013

This Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to 2014
propose property such that there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence of 2015
Extreme SuperHyperVertices and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme 2016
SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 2017
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities but the maximum Extreme cardinality indicates 2018
that these Extreme type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the Extreme lower bound in 2019
the term of Extreme sharpness. In other words, the Extreme SuperHyperSet 2020

Of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but 2021
sometimes the Extreme SuperHyperSet 2022

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

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

cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the Extreme cardinality, of an Extreme Extreme
quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the Extreme quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is only up in
this Extreme quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. It’s the contradiction to that
fact on the Extreme generality. There are some counterexamples to deny this statement.
One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and star as the
counterexamples-classes or reversely direction cycle as the examples-classes, are
well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the examples-classes
and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Let V \ V \ {z, z 0 } in mind. There’s no Extreme necessity on the Extreme 2023
SuperHyperEdge since we need at least three Extreme SuperHyperVertices to form an 2024
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the Extreme principles of the main 2025
Extreme definition since there’s no Extreme condition to be satisfied but the Extreme 2026
condition is on the Extreme existence of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge instead of acting 2027
on the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there are three Extreme 2028
SuperHyperEdges, then the Extreme SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the 2029
intended Extreme definition to be Extremely applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z, z 0 } is 2030
withdrawn not by the Extreme conditions of the main Extreme definition but by the 2031
Extreme necessity of the Extreme pre-condition on the Extreme usage of the main 2032
Extreme definition. 2033
To make sense with the precise Extreme words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up 2034
Extreme illustrations are Extremely coming up. 2035
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

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

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 only one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence
of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, instead of all given by
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
There are not only four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is up. The
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet includes only four Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far four Extreme SuperHyperEdges.
Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of
Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 2037

SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2039
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 2040
SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one Extreme consecutive 2041
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form 2042
only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Extreme 2043
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s an Extreme 2044
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s the maximum Extreme cardinality of 2045
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such 2046
that there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2047
SuperHyperConnectivities. There are not only less than four Extreme 2049
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 2050



SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only simple 2055

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

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme girth embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities, are
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2062
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 2063

Is an Extreme type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least 2064
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme 2065
type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of 2066

2067
Proposition 4.3. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Extreme number of type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has, the least
Extreme cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the
Extreme cardinality of
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least Extreme 2068
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 2069
Proof. The Extreme structure of the Extreme type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities

decorates the Extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme
connections so as this Extreme style implies different versions of Extreme
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Extreme bound is to have the maximum
Extreme groups of Extreme SuperHyperVertices have perfect Extreme connections
inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this Extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t
matter but regarding the connectedness of the used Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
arising from its Extreme properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no
more than one Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Extreme SuperHyperSet,
then there’s no Extreme connection. Furthermore, the Extreme existence of one
Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no Extreme effect to talk about the Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since at least two Extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to
make a title in the Extreme background of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The
Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic
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
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no Extreme appearance of the loop
Extreme version of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge and this Neutrosophic
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 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph,
there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least an Extreme

R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme cardinality of an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme
cardinality at least an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {z}. This Extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t an Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities since either the Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its consequences, there’s an
Extreme contradiction with the term “Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities” 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 \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }}
Comes up. This Extreme case implies having the Extreme style of on-quasi-triangle
Extreme style on the every Extreme elements of this Extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely,
the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that some Extreme amount of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle Extreme style. The Extreme cardinality of the
v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph but this key point
is enough since there’s an Extreme SuperHyperClass of a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph has no on-quasi-triangle Extreme style amid some amount of its
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. This Extreme setting of the Extreme SuperHyperModel
proposes an Extreme SuperHyperSet has only some amount Extreme
SuperHyperVertices from one Extreme SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Extreme
amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of
these Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The Extreme cardinality of this Extreme
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the Extreme case is occurred in the minimum
Extreme situation. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Extreme cardinality such that
Contains some Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 2070
used Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 2071
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 2072
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 2073
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 2074
are coming up. 2075


Is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some
Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by
There’s not only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet includes only one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

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

SuperHyperConnectivities, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 2076
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 2077
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 2078
“Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities” 2080
Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities, 2082
is only and only

it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
To sum them up, assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then the Extreme number of R-SuperHyperConnectivities has, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the Extreme cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 2084
bound for cardinality. 2085
Proposition 4.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2086
R-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 2087
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the 2088
Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 2089
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 2090
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in some cases but 2091
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 2092
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 2093
contained in an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. 2094
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number

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

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

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

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Extreme

E
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices belong to the Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 2095
Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
2096
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of
the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 2099
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 2100
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in some cases 2102
but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 2103
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2104
are contained in an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. 2105
are coming up. 2107




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

is only and only

To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

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

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

Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Proposition 4.5. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2125
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 2126
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 2127
any given Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities minus all Extreme 2128
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 2129
unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme 2130
SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, minus all 2131
Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 2132
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 2133
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 2134
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 2135
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 2136
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 2137
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 2138
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 2139
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 2140
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 2141
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 2142
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme 2143
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities where the Extreme completion of the Extreme 2144
incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an Extreme embedded 2145
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and 2146
quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets 2147
only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting 2148
is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme 2149
SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two 2150
distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme 2151
style of the embedded Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The interior types of the 2152
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of 2153
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 2154
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 2155
inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme 2156
SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus Extreme 2157
exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in 2158
Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that 2159
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, 2160
there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more 2161
connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than 2162
the title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, 2163
the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 2164
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 2165
implying the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme 2166
R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the exclusion of the exclusion of all Extreme 2167
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the 2168
Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the inclusion of all Extreme 2169
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme 2170
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 2171
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 2172
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 2173
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities 2174
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other 2175
words, there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 2176
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, 2177
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 2178
are coming up. 2180




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


is only and only



cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2189
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 2190
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 2191
any given Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities minus all Extreme 2192
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 2193
an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme 2194
SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, minus all 2195
Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 2196
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2197
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 2198
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 2199
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually 2200
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 2201
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 2202
Proof. The main definition of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities has two titles. 2203
an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities and its corresponded quasi-maximum 2204
Extreme R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any 2205
Extreme number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities with that 2206
quasi-maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 2207
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 2208
SuperHyperGraph, then the Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 2209
collection of all the Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess for all Extreme 2210
numbers less than its Extreme corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 2211
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of 2212
the Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, again and more in the operations of 2213
collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess acted on the all possible 2214
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. 2215
This Extreme number is 2216
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 2217
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 2218
GExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and 2219
an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 2220
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is 2221
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 2222
GExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 2223
technical definition for the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 2224
GExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities =
{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 2225
SuperHyperConnectivities poses the upcoming expressions. 2226
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 2227
= max zExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 2228

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 2229


2230
= zExtreme Number |

2231
= maxzExtreme Number

2232

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 2233
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 2234
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 2235
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 2236
Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 2237
Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities” since “Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities” 2238
happens “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 2239
initial framework and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not 2240
initial framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about 2242
the Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 2243
“Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities”, and 2244
“Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” are up. 2245
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 2246
GExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities be an Extreme number, an Extreme 2247
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and the new 2248
terms are up. 2249

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
2250
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
2251
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
2252
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = max zExtreme Number }.
And with go back to initial structure, 2253


2254
= zExtreme Number |

2255

2256

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 2257
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities 2258
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 2259
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 2260
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 2261
them. 2262
are coming up. 2264




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


is only and only



cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2273
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 2274
ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities only contains all interior 2280
Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the 2281
unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Extreme 2282
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no 2283
exception minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but 2284
everything is possible about Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme 2285
SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2286
Proof. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an 2287
Extreme SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme 2288
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme 2289
SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than 2290
r distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet 2291
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme 2292
R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound 2293
for Extreme cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2294
ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2295
VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 2296
that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2297
uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it doesn’t have 2298
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 2299
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some 2300
SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 2301
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2302
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 2303
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that 2304
such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme 2305
SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside 2306
implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2307
ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme 2308
SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme 2309
SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one 2310
Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 2311
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 2312
Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme 2313
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities, VESHE , is an 2314
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does 2315
forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a 2316
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme 2317
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 2318
maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2319
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 2320
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic 2321
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities only 2322
contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 2323
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 2324
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 2325
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 2326
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 2327
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2328
are coming up. 2330





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

is only and only



cardinality of
To sum them up, assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2339
ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities only contains all interior 2340
Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the 2341
unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Extreme 2342
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no 2343
exception minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but 2344
everything is possible about Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme 2345
SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2346
Remark 4.8. The words “ Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Extreme 2347
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum Extreme type-style. In other 2348
words, they refer to the maximum Extreme SuperHyperNumber and the Extreme 2349
SuperHyperSet with the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. 2350
ESHG : (V, E). Consider an Extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an Extreme 2352
SuperHyperConnectivities has the members poses only one Extreme representative in an 2353
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2354
Proof. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an 2355
Extreme SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (4.7), the Extreme 2356
results are up. Thus on a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2357
Consider an Extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an Extreme 2358
SuperHyperConnectivities has the members poses only one Extreme representative in 2359
an Extreme quasi-SuperHyperDominating. 2360
5 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 2361
The previous Extreme approaches apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 2362
SuperHyperClasses. 2363
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 2364
an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities-style with the maximum Extreme 2365
SuperHyperCardinality is an Extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior Extreme 2366
SuperHyperVertices. 2367
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 2368
an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 2369
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no Extreme exceptions in the form of 2370
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdges not 2371
excluding only any interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the Extreme unique 2372
SuperHyperEdges. an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme 2373
number of all the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Also, 2374
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

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

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

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

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is the
cardinality of
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality.
There are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the
setting of the graph titled path and cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely
direction star as the examples-classes, are well-known classes in that setting and they
could be considered as the examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight
bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 2375
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 2376
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 2377
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 2378
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 2379
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 2380
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 2381
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 2382
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities decorates the

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

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

the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every Extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least
no Extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those Extreme

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

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


z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2388


V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 2398
The main definition of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities has two titles. an 2444
Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities and its corresponded quasi-maximum 2445


= zExtreme Number |
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

And then, 2469



2471
= zExtreme Number |

2472

2473

terms are up. 2490

2491
= zExtreme Number |
2492
2493


2495
= zExtreme Number |

2496

2497

them. 2503
are coming up. 2505




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

is only and only



cardinality of
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 2520
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 2521
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 2522
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 2523
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 2524
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the 2525
least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 2526
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme 2527
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme 2528
SuperHyperSet S of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 2529
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an 2530
Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it doesn’t have 2531
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. There’s neither 2562
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme 2563
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 2564
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme 2565
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 2567
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 2568
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex 2572
of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for 2573
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2574
inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme 2575
called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet includes 2577
only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 2578
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 2580
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme 2589
SuperHyperVertices given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 2590
SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Since 2591
it’s the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2592
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 2593
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 2594
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 2595
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 2596
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperConnectivities, not: 2599
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 2600
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 2601
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 2602
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.3. In the Figure (21), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 2609
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 2610
Extreme SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperConnectivities. 2611
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 2612
ESHC : (V, E). Then an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme 2613
SuperHyperSet of the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no Extreme 2614
exceptions on the form of interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the same Extreme 2615
SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any Extreme SuperHyperVertex. an Extreme 2616
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme half number of all the Extreme 2617
SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum Extreme cardinality. Also, 2618
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Figure 21. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme Super-

HyperConnectivities in the Example (5.3)

SuperHyperSet




cardinality of
bound of


Let
v SuperHypeSet


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

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


z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2632

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


= zExtreme Number |

And then, 2713



2715
= zExtreme Number |

2716

2717

terms are up. 2734

2735
= zExtreme Number |
2736
2737


2739
= zExtreme Number |

2740

2741

them. 2747
are coming up. 2749




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


is only and only



cardinality of
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.5. In the Figure (22), the connected Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 2853
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 2854
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (22), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 2855
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 2856
an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 2857
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. an 2858
Figure 22. an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in the Extreme Example (5.5)
Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme number of the Extreme 2859
cardinality of the one Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Also, 2860
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X
= z |E|Extreme Cardinality | E:∈EESHG:(V,E) .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 , . . . .

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

SuperHyperSet




cardinality of
bound of


Let
v SuperHypeSet


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

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


z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
2874

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


= zExtreme Number |
[zExtreme

And then, 2955



2957
= zExtreme Number |

2958

2959

terms are up. 2976

2977
= zExtreme Number |
2978
2979


2981
= zExtreme Number |

2982

2983

them. 2989
are coming up. 2991




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


is only and only



cardinality of
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

Example 5.7. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 3095
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 3096
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 3097
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 3098
(23), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 3099
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 3100
Then an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 3101
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices with no Extreme exceptions in the form of interior 3102
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperConnectivities in the Extreme Example (5.7)
Extreme SuperHyperVertices titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. an Extreme 3103
R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme maximum number of on Extreme 3104
cardinality of the minimum SuperHyperPart minus those have common Extreme 3105
SuperHyperNeighbors and not unique Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3106
min |PESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .

SuperHyperSet




cardinality of
bound of


Let
v SuperHypeSet


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

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


z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3120

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


= zExtreme Number |
[zExtreme

And then, 3201



3203
= zExtreme Number |

3204

3205

terms are up. 3222

3223
= zExtreme Number |
3224
3225


3227
= zExtreme Number |

3228

3229

them. 3235
are coming up. 3237




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

is only and only




cardinality of
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme

Notions of Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in the Example (5.9)
Example 5.9. In the Extreme Figure (24), the connected Extreme 3341
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 3342
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 3343
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 3344
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the 3345
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 3346
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 3347
ESHM : (V, E). Then an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme 3348
SuperHyperSet of the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no Extreme 3349
exception in the Extreme form of interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from an Extreme 3350
SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from 3351
another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring 3352
more than some of them aren’t SuperHyperNeighbors to all. an Extreme 3353
R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme maximum number on all the Extreme 3354
summation on the Extreme cardinality of the all Extreme SuperHyperParts form some 3355
SuperHyperEdges minus those make Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all or not 3356
unique. Also, 3357
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .


SuperHyperSet




cardinality of
bound of

Let
v SuperHypeSet


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

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

{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .


z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3371

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


= zExtreme Number |

And then, 3452



3454
= zExtreme Number |

3455

3456

terms are up. 3473

3474
= zExtreme Number |
3475
3476


3478
= zExtreme Number |

3479

3480

them. 3486
are coming up. 3488




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

is only and only



cardinality of
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperConnectivities in the Example (5.11)
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 5.11. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 3592
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 3593
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 3594
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 3595
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 3596
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 3597
Then an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 3598
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices, excluding the Extreme SuperHyperCenter, with 3599
only no exception in the form of interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from same 3600
Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion on Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of 3601
them and not all. an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme maximum 3602
number on all the Extreme number of all the Extreme SuperHyperEdges don’t have 3603
common Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. Also, 3604
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

SuperHyperSet




cardinality of
bound of

Let
v SuperHypeSet



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

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


z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E
3618


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


= zExtreme Number |
[zExtreme

And then, 3699



3701
= zExtreme Number |

3702

3703

terms are up. 3720

3721
= zExtreme Number |
3722
3723


3725
= zExtreme Number |

3726

3727

them. 3733
are coming up. 3735




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

is only and only



cardinality of
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 5.13. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3839
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 3840
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 3841
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 3842
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 3843
6 General Extreme Results 3844
For the SuperHyperConnectivities, Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, and the 3845
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, some general results are introduced. 3846
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is “redefined” on 3847
the positions of the alphabets. 3848
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 3849
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities =
{theSuperHyperConnectivitiesof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperConnectivities. }
Figure 26. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in the Extreme Example (5.13)
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 3850
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 3851
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 3852
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 3853
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and 3854
SuperHyperConnectivities coincide. 3855
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 3857
SuperHyperConnectivities if and only if it’s a SuperHyperConnectivities. 3858
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 3860
SuperHyperConnectivities if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperConnectivities. 3861
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 3862
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is its 3863
SuperHyperConnectivities and reversely. 3864
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, 3865
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 3866
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is 3867
its SuperHyperConnectivities and reversely. 3868
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 3869
SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities 3870
isn’t well-defined. 3871
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3872
its Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its 3873
SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined. 3874
Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its 3877
SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined. 3878
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 3879
SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities is 3880
well-defined. 3881
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3882
Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined if and only if its 3883
SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined. 3884
Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined if and only if its 3887
SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined. 3888
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 3889
is 3890
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3891
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3892
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3893
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3894
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3895
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 3896
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3897
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3898
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3899
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 3900
statements are equivalent. 3901
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 3902
following statements are equivalent. 3903
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 3904
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 3906
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 3908
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are 3910
equivalent. 3911
∀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.
3912
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3913
∅ is 3914
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3915
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3916
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3917
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3918
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3919
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 3920
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3921
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3922
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3923
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 3924
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 3926
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 3928
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 3930
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 3932
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 3934
∀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.
3936
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 3937
independent SuperHyperSet is 3938
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3939
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3940
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3941
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3942
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3943
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 3944
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 3945
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3946
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive 3948
SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are equivalent. 3949
∀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 3950
∀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 3952
∀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 3954
∀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 3956
∀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 3958
∀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.
3960
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 3961
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 3962
maximal 3963
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3964
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3965
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3966
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3967
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3968
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3969
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3970
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3971
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. 3972
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3973
SuperHyperConnectivities. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, 3974
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 3975
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3976
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities, 3977
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 3978
∀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 3979
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities. 3980
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3981
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. This 3982
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3983
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3984
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3985
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3988
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3989
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive 3990
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 3991
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3993
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3994
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 3995
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3996
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3997
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3998
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 3999
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4000
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4001
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 4002
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph 4003
which is a SuperHyperWheel. 4004
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By 4007
it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and 4008
it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 4009
∀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 4011
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 4012
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4014
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 4015
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. Then the 4019
number of 4020
(i) : the SuperHyperConnectivities; 4021
(ii) : the SuperHyperConnectivities; 4022
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperConnectivities; 4023
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities; 4024
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities; 4025
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities. 4026
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4027
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 4028
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4029
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. 4030
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 4033
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 4034
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities, 4035
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities. 4038
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 4039
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. This 4040
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 4041
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 4042
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 4043
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 4046
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive 4048
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 4049
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 4053
(i) : the dual SuperHyperConnectivities; 4054
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperConnectivities; 4055
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperConnectivities; 4056
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities; 4057
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities; 4058
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities. 4059
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4060
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph 4062
which is a SuperHyperWheel. 4063
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By 4066
it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and 4067
it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 4068
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual 4070
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform 4071
SuperHyperWheel. 4072
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4074
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 4075
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 4079
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 4080
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 4081
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 4082
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4086
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4087
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4088
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 4089
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 4090
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4091
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 4092
∀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 4093
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperStar. 4094
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 4095
SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 4096
in S. 4097
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which 4099
isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4100
SuperHyperConnectivities and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 4102
or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 4103
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4104
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite 4106
which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 4107

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4109
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s O(ESHG) 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 4110
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 4115
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 4116
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 4117
is a 4118
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4122
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4123
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4124
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 4125
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 4126
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex 4127
has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, 4128
then 4129
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive 4130
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 4132
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 4133
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has no 4134
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 4135
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities 4136
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4137
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 4138
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 4139
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has no 4140
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 4141
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive 4142
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s an 4146
δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4147
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 4151
number of 4152
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4156
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4157
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4158
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 4159
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 4160
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4161
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 4164
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 4165
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 4166
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 4170
in S. 4171
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which 4173
isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 4174
SuperHyperConnectivities and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 4176
or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 4177
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=12
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s O(ESHG) 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 4184
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 4187
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 4188
(iv) : SuperHyperConnectivities; 4192
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4193
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4194
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4195
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. These SuperHyperVertex-type have 4196
some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 4197
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperConnectivities and number of connected component is |V − S|. 4199
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s a 4201
dual 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4202
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 4204
number is 4205
at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is 4206
at most On (ESHG). 4207
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 4208
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 4209
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 4210
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4211
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4213
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4215
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4217
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4219
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4221
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and V is the biggest 4223
SuperHyperSet in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is 4224
at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is 4225
at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 4226
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 4227
SuperHyperComplete. The number is 4228

O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 4229
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 4230
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4234
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4236
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4237
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 4238
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 4241
number is 4242
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 4244
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4245
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4246
∀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 4249
number is 4251
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 4253
t>
2
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4255
∀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 4258
number is 4260
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 4262
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4264
∀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 4267
number is 4269
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4273
∀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 4276
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities in a given 4277
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4278

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 4280
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 4282
∀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 4285
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities in a given 4286
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 4287

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 4289
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
∅. The number is 4292
0 and the Extreme number is 4293
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 4294
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4298
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4299
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4300
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 4301
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 4302
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4304
∀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 4306
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4308
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4310
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4312
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 4314
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4316
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 4318
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 4320
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following 4322
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is 4324
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive 4326
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4328
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is 4330
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 4332
0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4333
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the 4334
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is 4336
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive 4338
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 4341
SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 4343
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is 4344
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 4345
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4349
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4350
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4351
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 4352
SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 4353
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4354
SuperHyperConnectivities. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, 4355
i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperConnectivities, 4356
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4357
∀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 4358
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperConnectivities. 4359
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4360
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 4362
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4363
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperPath. 4365
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4366
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 4368
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 4369
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperWheel. 4371
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4373
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 4374
Thus the number is 4377
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is 4378
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4379
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 4382
number is 4383
O(ESHG:(V,E))
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n 4393
half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, 4394
then 4395
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 4396
∀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 4399
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 4402
SuperHyperStar. 4403
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 4404
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and they are chosen from different 4405
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 4406
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 4407
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither 4409
a SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 4410

O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4412
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 4413
Thus the number is 4416

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 4418
t>
2
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 4420
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 4421
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 4422
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 4423
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 4424
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 4425
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are 4426
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 4427
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 4428
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 4429
such that 4430
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 4431
(ii) vx ∈ E. 4432
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 4433
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, 4434
∀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 4435
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, 4436
∀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.
4437
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 4438
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then 4439
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 4440
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 4441
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, 4443
either 4444
∀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 4445
∀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. 4446
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, either 4448
∀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 4449
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 4450
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 4451
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 4452
number. 4453
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 4454
Then 4455
(i) Γ ≤ O; 4456
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 4457
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4458
S = V. 4459
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all 4460
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 4461
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 4462
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 4463
S, Γ ≤ O. 4464
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4465
S = V. 4466
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all 4467
SuperHyperSets of Extreme SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets 4468
of Extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all 4469
SuperHyperSets of Extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all 4470
SuperHyperSets of Extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 4471
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4472
which is connected. Then 4473
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 4474
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4475
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4476
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4477
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all 4478
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4479
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 4480
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 4481
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 4482
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 4483
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 4484
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all 4485
SuperHyperSets of Extreme SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 4486
SuperHyperSets of Extreme SuperHyperVertices 4487
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 4488
Extreme SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 4489
SuperHyperSets of Extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 4490
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 4491
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4492
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4494
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4495
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4496
a dual SuperHyperConnectivities. 4497
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 4498
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4499
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 4500
SuperHyperConnectivities. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where 4501
vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4502
∃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 4503
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a 4504
dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4505
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 4506
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4507
SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a 4508
dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an 4509
odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4510
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4511
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4514
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 4518
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4519
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 4521
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 4522
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4523
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4524
dual SuperHyperConnectivities. 4525
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 4526
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4527
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 4528
SuperHyperConnectivities. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, 4529
then 4530
∃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 4531
SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 4532
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4535
even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4538
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4542
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4546
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4547
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 4549
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4550
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 4551
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 4552
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperConnectivities. Let 4554
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4555
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 4556
SuperHyperConnectivities. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, 4557
then 4558
∃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 4559
SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 4560
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4563
even SuperHyperConnectivities. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4566
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4570
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4574
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4575
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 4577
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 4578
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 4579
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Let 4581
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 4582
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4585
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4590
odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 4593
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 4597
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 4601
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperConnectivities; 4602
(ii) Γ = 1; 4603
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 4604
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperConnectivities. 4605
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4606
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If 4607
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4608
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. It 4609
induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4610
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4612
Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4613
SuperHyperConnectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4614
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4615
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 4616
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 4617
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4618
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 4619
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 4620
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 4621
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4622
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 4623

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 4624
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 4625
∀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 4626
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If 4627

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 4628
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 4629
∀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 4630
∀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 4631
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4632
6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 4633
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4634
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 4635
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 4636
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 4639
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 4640
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4641
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 4643

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 4644
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If 4645
n
0 b c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
, then 4646
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 4647
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4648
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 4651
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 4654
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 4655
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4656
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 4658
Thus 4659
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If 4660
n
0 b2c bn
2c
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4661
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 4663
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 4666
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 4667
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4668
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF; 4669
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 4670
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 4671
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 4672
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). 4673
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 4674
∀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 4675
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 4676
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for 4677
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 4678
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). 4679
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4681
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is 4682
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose 4683
ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 4684
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for 4685
N SHF : (V, E). 4686
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 4687
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 4688
SuperHyperSet. Then 4689
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 4690
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF; 4691
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 4692
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 4693
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 4694
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). 4695
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 4696
Thus 4697
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for 4698
bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4699
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 4701
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). 4702
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 4704
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 4705
SuperHyperSet. Then 4706
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 4707
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E); 4708
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 4709
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 4710
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperConnectivities 4711
for N SHF : (V, E). 4712
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 4713
Thus 4714
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for 4715
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 4716
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 4718
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). 4719
Then following statements hold; 4722
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4723
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is an 4724
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4725
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4726
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is a dual 4727
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4728
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 4730
SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4731
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4732
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4734
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4736
Then following statements hold; 4738
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 4739
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is an 4740
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities; 4741
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 4742
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is a dual 4743
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities. 4744
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 4746
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. By S is an 4748
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and S is a dual 4749
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 4750
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 4753
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. By S is an 4755
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and S is a dual 4756
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 4757
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 4759
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 4760
statements hold; 4761
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4764
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4766
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4768
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4769
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic 4770
SuperHyperGraph. Then 4771
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1) < 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4772
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic 4773
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4775
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic 4776
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4778
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic 4779
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4781
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 4782
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 4783
statements hold; 4784
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4787
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 4789
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4791
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4792
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4796
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4798
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4800
∀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.
4801
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4803
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4804
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4807
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 4809
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4812
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4814
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4816
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4818
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4820
∀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.
4821
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4823
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4824
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4827
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 4829
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities; 4830
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4832
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 4834
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4841
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4844
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 4846
SuperHyperConnectivities. Then following statements hold; 4847
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4848
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4850
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4852
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4857
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4859
Then 4860
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4862
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. 4864
Then 4865
∀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.
4866
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 4868
SuperHyperConnectivities. Then following statements hold; 4869
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4870
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4872
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4874
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperConnectivities. Then 4879
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

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

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

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

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 4890
Recognition 4891
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 4892
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 4893
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 4894
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 4895
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 4896
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 4897
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 4898
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 4899
long-term Extreme function. 4900
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 4901
model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of 4902
the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of 4903
the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 4904
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on 4905
that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 4906
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 4907
happened and what’s done. 4908
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 4909
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 4910
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 4911
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 4912
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, 4913
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 4914
find either the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities or the Extreme 4915
SuperHyperConnectivities in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 4916
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 4917
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 4918
SuperHyperModel 4919
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (27), the Extreme 4920
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 4921
By using the Extreme Figure (27) and the Table (4), the Extreme 4922
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 4923
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 4924
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 4925
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is 4926
the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 4927
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 4928
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 4929
SuperHyperModel 4930
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (28), the Extreme 4931
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 4932
By using the Extreme Figure (28) and the Table (5), the Extreme 4933
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 4934
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 4935
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 4936
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), 4937
is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. 4938
10 Open Problems 4939
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 4940
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
The SuperHyperConnectivities and the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities are 4941
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 4942
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 4943
recognitions? 4944
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 4945
SuperHyperConnectivities and the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities? 4946
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 4947
compute them? 4948
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 4949
SuperHyperConnectivities and the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities? 4950
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperConnectivities and the Extreme 4951
SuperHyperConnectivities do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 4952
they’re based on SuperHyperConnectivities, are there else? 4953
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 4954
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 4955
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 4956
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 4957
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 4958
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 4959
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 4960
highlighted. 4961
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 4962
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 4963
SuperHyperConnectivities. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 4964
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based 4965
on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 4966
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, finds the convenient 4967
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 4968
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 4969
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 4970
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 4971
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperConnectivities, the new SuperHyperClasses and 4972
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 4973
the SuperHyperConnectivities and the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The 4974
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 4975
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 4976
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 4977
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 4978
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 4979
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 4980
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 4981
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 4982
formally called “ SuperHyperConnectivities” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 4983
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 4984
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperConnectivities
3. Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
4985
advantages of this research are pointed out. 4986
References 4987
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4988
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 4989
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 4990
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 4991
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 4992
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 4993
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 4994
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 4995
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 4996
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 4997
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 4998
(2022) 242-263. 4999
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 5000
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 5001
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 5002
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 5003
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 5004
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 5005
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 5006
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 5007
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 5008
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 5009
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 5010
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 5011
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 5012
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 5013
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 5014
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 5015
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 5016
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 5017
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 5018
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 5019
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 5020
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 5021
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 5022
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 5023
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 5024
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 5025
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 5026
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 5027
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 5028
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 5029
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 5030
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 5031
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 5032
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 5033
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 5034
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 5035
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 5036
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 5037
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 5038
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 5039
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 5040
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 5041
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 5042
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 5043
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 5044
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 5045
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 5046
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 5047
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 5048
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 5049
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 5050
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 5051
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 5052
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 5053
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 5054
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 5055
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 5056
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 5058
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 5059
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 5060
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 5061
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 5062
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 5063
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 5064
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 5065
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 5066
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 5067
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 5068
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 5069
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 5070
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 5071
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 5072
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 5073
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 5074
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 5075
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 5076
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 5077
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 5078
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 5079
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 5080
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 5081
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 5082
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 5083
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 5084
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 5085
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 5086
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 5087
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 5088
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 5089
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 5090
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 5091
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 5092
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 5093
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 5094
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 5095
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 5096
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 5098
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 5099
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 5100
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 5101
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 5102
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 5103
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 5104
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 5105
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 5106
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 5107
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 5110
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 5111
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 5112
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 5113
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 5114
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 5115
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 5116
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 5117
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 5118
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 5119
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 5120
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 5121
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 5122
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 5123
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 5124
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 5125
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 5126
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 5127
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 5128
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 5129
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 5130
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 5131
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 5132
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 5133
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 5134
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 5135
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 5136
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 5137
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 5138
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 5139
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 5140
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Disruptions in Cancer's Extreme Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hyper Plans Called SuperHyperConnectivities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super Disruptions in Cancer's Extreme Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hyper Plans Called SuperHyperConnectivities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer's Extreme Recognition As

Preprint · February 2023

280 PUBLICATIONS 2,650 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

On Fuzzy Logic View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 2

Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper 3

Plans Called SuperHyperConnectivities 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

In this research, [Extreme Strength of the Extreme SuperHyperPaths] Assume a 9

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). an Extreme 10

SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Extreme 11

SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and 12

Extreme SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs , have Extreme 13

f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; Extreme strength 15

SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 17

ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider an Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 18

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called Extreme t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum 19

number of Extreme t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme 20

SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 21

1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Extreme i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Extreme i-strength of 22

SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Extreme 23

SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Extreme f-connective if F (E) ≥ 24

maximum number of Extreme f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme 25

SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 26

1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Extreme connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of Extreme 27

strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to 28

Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. ((Extreme) 29

SuperHyperConnectivities). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 30

an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider an Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 31

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s 32

either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and 33

Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 34

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 35

of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive 36

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 37

that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme 38

SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, 39

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 41

SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 42

consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 43

form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 44

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, 45

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 47

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 48

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 49

Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 50

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and 51

the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; an Extreme 52

SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, 53

a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 55

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 56

number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 57

Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 58

SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 60

coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Extreme 61

t-connective, Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and 62

C(N SHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 63

Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 64

Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 65