New Ideas On Super Connections by Hyper Disconnections of SuperHyperJoin in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368505978
New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of SuperHyperJoin In

Cancer's Recognition with (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · February 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17761.79206
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
300 PUBLICATIONS 3,285 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project
On Fuzzy Logic View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 15 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 connections By Hyper disconnections 2
Of SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperJoin). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 10
pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 11
E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if 12
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 13
Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 14
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 15
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 16
v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 17
∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if 18
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 19
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 20
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 21
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic 22
rv-SuperHyperJoin. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). Assume a Neutrosophic 23
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 24
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 25
SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 26
re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic 27
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 28
is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 29
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 30
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 31
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 32
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, 33
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 34
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 35
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 36
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 37
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; an Extreme 38
SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 39
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 41
is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 42
Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges 43
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 44
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 45
SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a 46
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 47
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 49
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 50
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 51
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 52
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 53
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 54
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 55
Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 56
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 58
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 59
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive 60
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 61
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s 62
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, 63
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) 64
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 65
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 66
of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 67
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 68
SuperHyperJoin; an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 69
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 70
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 71
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 72
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 73
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet 74
S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 75
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the 76
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 77
SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 78
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 80
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic 81
coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic 82
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 83
of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 84
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 86
coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is introduced for new 87
SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperJoin and Extreme SuperHyperJoin. Two 88
different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes 89
further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 90
on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 91
whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 92
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 93
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 94
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 95
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 96
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 97
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 98
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 99
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 100
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 101
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 102
“Extreme SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 103
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 104
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 105
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 106
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 107
δ−SuperHyperJoin is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality 108
such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Extreme) cardinalities of 109
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and 110
|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is an 111
δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 112
δ−SuperHyperDefensive; an Extreme δ−SuperHyperJoin is a maximal Extreme of 113
SuperHyperVertices with maximum Extreme cardinality such that either of the 114
following expressions hold for the Extreme cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 115
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|Extreme > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|Extreme + δ; 116
and |S ∩ N (s)|Extreme < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|Extreme + δ. The first Expression, holds if S 117
is an Extreme δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 118
Extreme δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Extreme” version of a 119
SuperHyperJoin . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 120
SuperHyperJoin more understandable. For the sake of having Extreme 121
SuperHyperJoin, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperJoin ”. The 122
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 123
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 124
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperJoin . It’s redefined an Extreme 125
SuperHyperJoin if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 126
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Extreme 127
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number 128
of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of 129
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 130
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 131
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 132
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 133
based on a SuperHyperJoin . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation 134
of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all 135
SuperHyperJoin until the SuperHyperJoin, then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperJoin” 136
but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperJoin . There are some instances about the 137
clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperJoin ”. These two examples 138
get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways 139
of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperJoin . For the sake of having an 140
Extreme SuperHyperJoin, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “Extreme 141
SuperHyperJoin” and a “Extreme SuperHyperJoin ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 142
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 143
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume an 144
Extreme SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Extreme SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 145
Table holds. And a SuperHyperJoin are redefined to a “Extreme SuperHyperJoin” if 146
the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Extreme” version of SuperHyperClasses. 147
Since there’s more ways to get Extreme type-results to make an Extreme 148
SuperHyperJoin more understandable. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. There 149
are some Extreme SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus 150
SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperJoin, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 151
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Extreme SuperHyperPath”, 152
“Extreme SuperHyperJoin”, “Extreme SuperHyperStar”, “Extreme 153
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Extreme SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Extreme 154
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Extreme 155
SuperHyperJoin” where it’s the strongest [the maximum Extreme value from all the 156
SuperHyperJoin amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 157
SuperHyperJoin .] SuperHyperJoin . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 158
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 159
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. 160
It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 161
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperJoin if it’s only one SuperVertex 162
as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one 163
SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s 164
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these 165
SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 166
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 167
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no 168
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as 169
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one 170
SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the 171
specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 172
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The 173
“specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 174
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells 175
and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. 176
Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and 177
neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the 178
SuperHyperModel is called “Extreme”. In the future research, the foundation will be 179
based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 180
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 181
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 182
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 183
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 184
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 185
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme 186
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 187
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 188
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 189
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by 190
an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperJoin, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 191
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest 192
SuperHyperJoin or the strongest SuperHyperJoin in those Extreme 193
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperJoin, called SuperHyperJoin, and the 194
strongest SuperHyperJoin, called Extreme SuperHyperJoin, some general results are 195
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only 196
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 197
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperJoin. There isn’t any formation of 198
any SuperHyperJoin but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperJoin. It, 199
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with Extreme 200
SuperHyperJoin theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Extreme SuperHyperGraphs theory 201
are proposed. 202
Keywords: Extreme SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperJoin, Cancer’s Extreme 203
Recognition 204
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 205
1 Background 206
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 207
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them date back on January 22, 208
2023. 209
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 210
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 211
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 212
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 213
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 214
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 215
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 216
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 217
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 218
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 219
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 220
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 221
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 222
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 223
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 224
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 225
majority of notions. 226
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 227
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 228
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 229
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 230
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 231
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 232
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 233
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 234
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 235
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 236
based on initial background. 237
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 238
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 239
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 240
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 241
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 242
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 243
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 244
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 245
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 246
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 247
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 248
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 249
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 250
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 251
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 252
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 253
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 254
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 255
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 256
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 257
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 258
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 259
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 260
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 261
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 262
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 263
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 264
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 265
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 266
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 267
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 268
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 269
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 270
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 271
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 272
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 273
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 274
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 275
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 276
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 277
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 278
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 279
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 280
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 281
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 282
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 283
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 284
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 285
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 286
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 287
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 288
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 289
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 290
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 291
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 292
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 293
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 294
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 295
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 296
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 297
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 298
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 299
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 300
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 301
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 302
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 303
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 304
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 305
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 306
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 307
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 308
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 309
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 310
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 311
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 312
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 313
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 314
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 315
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 316
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 317
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 318
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 319
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 320
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 321
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 322
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 323
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 324
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 325
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 326
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 327
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 328
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 329
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 330
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 331
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 332
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 333
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 334
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 335
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 336
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 337
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 338
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 339
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 340
proposed as book in Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 341
Scholar and has more than 3230 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 342
Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st 343
Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different 344
types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 345
SuperHyperGraph theory. 346
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 347
proposed as book in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 348
Scholar and has more than 4117 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 349
and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell 350
Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different 351
types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of 352
duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This 353
research book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 354
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 355
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 356
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 357
framework of Extreme SuperHyperJoin theory, Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin theory, 358
and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–38]. Two popular scientific research 359
books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 3230 and 4117 respectively, on 360
neutrosophic science is on [39, 40]. 361
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 362
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 363
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 364
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 365
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 366
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 367
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 368
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 369
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 370
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 371
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 372
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 373
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 374
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 375
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 376
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 377
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 378
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 379
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 380
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 381
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 382
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 383
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 384
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 385
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 386
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 387
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 388
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 389
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 390
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 391
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 392
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 393
formally called “ SuperHyperJoin” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 394
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 395
for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 396
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 397
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 398
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 399
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 400
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme 401
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 402
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 403
some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 404
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme SuperHyperPath 405
(-/SuperHyperJoin, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 406
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the optimal SuperHyperJoin or the 407
Extreme SuperHyperJoin in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results 408
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath 409
s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 410
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperJoin. There isn’t any 411
formation of any SuperHyperJoin but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 412
SuperHyperJoin. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 413
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 414
find the “ amount of SuperHyperJoin” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells 415
based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 416
SuperHyperJoin” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 417
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 418
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 419
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 420
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 421
SuperHyperJoin” and “Extreme SuperHyperJoin” on “SuperHyperGraph” and 422
“Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 423
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 424
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 425
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 426
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 427
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 428
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 429
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 430
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 431
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 432
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 433
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 434
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperJoin and Extreme 435
SuperHyperJoin, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperJoin” and “Extreme 436
SuperHyperJoin”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order to make sense 437
about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme 438
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 439
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 440
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to 441
origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend 442
the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, 443
in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 444
SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and 445
as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section 446
“General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are 447
well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, 448
“General Results”, “ SuperHyperJoin”, “Extreme SuperHyperJoin”, “Results on 449
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 450
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 451
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 452
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperJoin”. The keyword 453
of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two 454
cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 455
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 456
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 457
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 458
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 459
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 460
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 461
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 462
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 463
Research On the Redeemed Ways 464
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 465
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 466
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.5,p.2), 467
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 468
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 469
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 470
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [38],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 471
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 472
(Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 473
to Ref. [38]. 474
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 475
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 476
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.1,p.1). 477
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 478
+
]− 0, 1 [. 479
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2). 480
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 481
2.5,p.2). 482
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 483
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 484
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 485
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 486
1, 2, . . . , n); 487
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 488
V; 489
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 490
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 491
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 492
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 493
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 494
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 495
(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 . 496
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 497
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 498
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 499
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 500
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 501
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 502
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 503
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 504
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 505
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 506
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 507
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 508
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 509
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 510
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 511
could be characterized as follow-up items. 512
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 513
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 514
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 515
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 516
HyperEdge; 517
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 518
SuperEdge; 519
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 520
SuperHyperEdge. 521
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 522
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 523
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3). 524
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 525
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 526
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 527
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 528
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 529
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 530
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)). 531
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 532
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 533
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 534
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 535
1, 2, . . . , n); 536
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 537
V; 538
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 539
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 540
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 541
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 542
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 543
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 544
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 545
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 546
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 547
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 548
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 549
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 550
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 551
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 552
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 553
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 554
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 555
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 558
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 559
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 561
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 562
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 563
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 564
HyperEdge; 565
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 566
SuperEdge; 567
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 568
SuperHyperEdge. 569
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 570
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 571
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 572
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 573
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 574
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 575
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 576
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 577
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 578
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 579
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 580
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 581
given SuperHyperEdges; 582
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 583
SuperHyperEdges; 584
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 585
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 586
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 587
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 588
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 589
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 590
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 591
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 592
common SuperVertex. 593
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 SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 594
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 595
of following conditions hold: 596
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 597
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 598
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 599
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 600
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 601
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 602
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 603
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 604
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 605
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 606
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 607
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 ,
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 609
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 610
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 611
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 612
SuperHyperPath . 613
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 614
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 616
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 617
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 618
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 619
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 620
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 621
(NSHE)). (Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). 622
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 624
called 625
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 626
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 627
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 628
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 629
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 630
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 632
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 633
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 635
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 636
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 637
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 638
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 639
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 641
E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 642
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 643
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 644
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 645
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 646
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 647
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 648
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 649
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 650
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 651
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 652
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 653
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 654
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 655
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 656
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 658
called 659
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 660
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 661
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 662
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 663
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 664
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 665
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 666
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 667
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 668
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 670
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 671
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 672
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 675
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 676
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 679
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 680
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 681
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 682
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 684
coefficient; 685
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 686
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 689
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 690
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 691
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 692
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 693
coefficient; 696
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 697
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 700
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 701
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 702
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 704
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 705
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 708
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 709
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 712
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 713
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 716
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 717
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 718
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 719
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 721
coefficient; 722
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 723
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 726
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 727
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 728
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 729
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 730
coefficient. 733
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperJoin). 734
Then 736
(i) an δ−SuperHyperJoin is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin 737
such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 738
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 739
|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 740
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 741
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperJoin is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 742
SuperHyperJoin such that either of the following Neutrosophic expressions hold 743
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 744
|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. 745
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 746
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 747
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin, there’s a need to “redefine” 748
the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 749
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 750
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 751
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 752
pair S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) 753
holds. 754
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 755
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 756
understandable. 757
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 758
pair S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 759
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperJoin, SuperHyperStar, 760
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 761
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin, 762
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 763
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic 764
SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 765
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 766
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin 767
more Neutrosophicly understandable. 768
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin, there’s a need to “redefine” 769
the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin”. The SuperHyperVertices 770

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 771
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 772
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperJoin. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 773
SuperHyperJoin if the Table (3) holds. 774
4 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The Extensions 775
Excerpt From Dense And Super Forms 776
Example 4.1. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair 777
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 778
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 779
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 780
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 781
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 782
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 783
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 784
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 785
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 786
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
787
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 789
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme 790
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 791
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 792
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 793
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 794
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 795

796
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperJoin in the Extreme Example (4.1)



799
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .
802

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
805



C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V3i+17i=0 }.
808
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V3 , V13 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
811

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
814



C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.
817

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
820

3 × 3z 2 .



823

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , Vii610=5,7,8 }.
i=4

826

3 × 3z 2 .
829

832




835

(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .
838

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
841




C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
844
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V2i+1i=05 }.
847

850




853

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
856

5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 857
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 858
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 859
SuperHyperClasses. 860
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 861
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 3

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 862
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 863
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme Super-

HyperJoin in the Example (5.2)
There’s a new way to redefine as 864
ViEXT ERN AL ∼ VjEXT ERN AL ≡

∃!Ez ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL ∈ Ez ≡
∃!Ez ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , {ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL } ⊆ Ez .
The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )| ≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 865
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 866
straightforward. 867
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 868
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 869
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 870
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 871
Then 872

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .

.
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperJoin in the Extreme Example (5.4)
Proof. Let 873
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 874

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 879
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 880
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 881
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 882
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperJoin in the Extreme Example (5.6)
Proof. Let 883
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 884
a new way to redefine as 885

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 889
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 890
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 891
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 892
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 893
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 894
Then 895
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

= (PERFECT MATCHING).
{Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
If ∃Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | =
6 min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |.
i
X
=( (min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |)choose|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |)
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
where ∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) |
= min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
= {ViEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 896
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Emini |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) | , Vmin i |Pi
ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) |+1
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 897

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 901
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 902
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 903
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperJoin in the Example (5.8)
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 904
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 905
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 906
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 907
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
The latter is straightforward. 908
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 909
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 910
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 911
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 912
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 913
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 914
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 915
ESHM : (V, E). Then 916

{Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
If ∃Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | =
6 min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |.
i
X
=( (min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |)choose|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |)
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
where ∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) |
= min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
= {ViEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 917
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 918
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 919

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 922
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 923
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 924
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperJoin in the Example (5.10)
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 925
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 926
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 927
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 928
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 929
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 930
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 931
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 932
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 933
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 934
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 935
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 936
Then, 937

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .

.
Proof. Let 938
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 939
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 940

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 943
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 944
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 945
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 946
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 947
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 948
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 949
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 950
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 951
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 952
Results But As The Initial Motivation 953
For the SuperHyperJoin, Extreme SuperHyperJoin, and the Extreme SuperHyperJoin, 954
some general results are introduced. 955
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperJoin is “redefined” on the 956
positions of the alphabets. 957
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperJoin in the Extreme Example (5.12)
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperJoin. Then 958
Extreme SuperHyperJoin =
{theSuperHyperJoinof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperJoin
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperJoin. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 959
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 960
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 961
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 962
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperJoin and SuperHyperJoin coincide. 963
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 965
SuperHyperJoin if and only if it’s a SuperHyperJoin. 966
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 968
SuperHyperJoin if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperJoin. 969
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 970
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperJoin is its 971
SuperHyperJoin and reversely. 972
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperJoin, 973
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 974
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperJoin is its 975
SuperHyperJoin and reversely. 976
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 977
SuperHyperJoin isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperJoin isn’t well-defined. 978
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 979
Extreme SuperHyperJoin isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperJoin isn’t 980
well-defined. 981
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 983
Then its Extreme SuperHyperJoin isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperJoin 984
isn’t well-defined. 985
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 986
SuperHyperJoin is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperJoin is well-defined. 987
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 988
its Extreme SuperHyperJoin is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperJoin is 989
well-defined. 990
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 992
Then its Extreme SuperHyperJoin is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperJoin is 993
well-defined. 994
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 995
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 996
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 997
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 998
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 999
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1000
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1001
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1002
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1003
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1004
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1005
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1006
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1007
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1008
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1009
independent SuperHyperSet is 1010
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1011
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1012
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1013
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1014
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1015
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1016
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1017
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperJoin/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 1018
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1019
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1020
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1021
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1022
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1023
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1024
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1025
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1026
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1027
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1028
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1029
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1030
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1031
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1032
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1033
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1034
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperJoin/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 1036
(i) : the SuperHyperJoin; 1037
(ii) : the SuperHyperJoin; 1038
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperJoin; 1039
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperJoin; 1040
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperJoin; 1041
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperJoin. 1042
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1043
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1044
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1046
(i) : the dual SuperHyperJoin; 1047
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperJoin; 1048
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperJoin; 1049
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperJoin; 1050
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperJoin; 1051
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperJoin. 1052
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1053
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1056
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1057
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1058
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1059
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1063
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1064
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1065
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1068
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1069
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1070
is a 1071
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1075
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1076
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1077
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1080
number of 1081
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1085
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1086
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1087
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1088
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1089
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1090
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1092
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1093
(iv) : SuperHyperJoin; 1097
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1098
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1099
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1100
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1101
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1102
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1103
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1104
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1108
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1110
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1111
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1112
setting of dual 1113
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1117
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1118
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1119
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1121
SuperHyperJoin/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) 1123
and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 1124
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1128
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1129
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1130
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1132
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1133
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1134
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1140
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1141
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1142
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1143
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1144
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1145
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1146
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1147
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1148
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1149
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin, then 1150
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 1151
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1152
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1153
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1154
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1155
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1156
connected. Then 1157
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1158
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1159
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1160
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1161
SuperHyperJoin; 1162
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1163
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1164
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1165
a dual SuperHyperJoin. 1166
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1167
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1168
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1169
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1170
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1171
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1172
dual SuperHyperJoin. 1173
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperJoin. Then 1174
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1175
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1177
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1178
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1179
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1180
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperJoin. Then 1182
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1183
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1185
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1186
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1187
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1189
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperJoin; 1190
(ii) Γ = 1; 1191
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1192
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperJoin. 1193
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1194
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1195
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1196
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1197
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1198
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1199
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1200
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1201
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1202
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1203
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1204
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1205
SuperHyperJoin. 1206
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1207
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1208
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1209
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 1210
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1211
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1213
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1214
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1215
SuperHyperJoin for N SHF; 1216
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1217
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1218
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1219
SuperHyperJoin for N SHF : (V, E). 1220
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1221
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1222
SuperHyperSet. Then 1223
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1224
SuperHyperJoin for N SHF; 1225
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1226
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1227
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperJoin for 1228
N SHF : (V, E). 1229
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1230
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1231
SuperHyperSet. Then 1232
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin 1233
for N SHF : (V, E); 1234
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1235
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1236
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperJoin for 1237
N SHF : (V, E). 1238
following statements hold; 1240
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1241
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 1242
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1244
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive 1245
following statements hold; 1248
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1249
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 1250
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1252
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 1253
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1255
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1256
hold; 1257
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1258
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1259
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1260
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1262
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1264
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1265
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme 1266
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 1267
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1268
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1270
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1272
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1274
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1275
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1277
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1278
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1280
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1282
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1285
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1287
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1288
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1290
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1292
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin; 1293
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1295
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperJoin. Then following statements hold; 1297
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1298
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1300
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1302
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1305
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperJoin. Then following statements hold; 1307
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1308
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1310
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1312
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperJoin. 1315
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1316
Recognition 1317
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1318
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1319
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1320
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1321
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1322
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1323
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1324
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1325
long-term Extreme function. 1326
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1327
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1328
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1329
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1330
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1331
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1332
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1333
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1334
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1335
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1336
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1337
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperJoin, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1338
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 1339
Extreme SuperHyperJoin or the Extreme SuperHyperJoin in those Extreme 1340
Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1341
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1342
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1343
SuperHyperModel 1344
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1345
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1346
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1347
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1348
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1349
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1350
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1351
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 1352
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1353
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1354
SuperHyperModel 1355
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1356
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1357
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperJoin
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperJoin
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1358
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1359
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1360
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1361
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1362
is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 1363
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1364
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1365
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1366
The SuperHyperJoin and the Extreme SuperHyperJoin are defined on a real-world 1367
application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1368
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1369
recognitions? 1370
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperJoin and the 1371
Extreme SuperHyperJoin? 1372
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1373
compute them? 1374
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1375
SuperHyperJoin and the Extreme SuperHyperJoin? 1376
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperJoin and the Extreme SuperHyperJoin do a 1377
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperJoin, 1378
are there else? 1379
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1380
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1381
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1382
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1383
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1384
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1385
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1386
highlighted. 1387
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1388
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1389
SuperHyperJoin. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 1390
Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the 1391
new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, Extreme 1392
SuperHyperJoin, finds the convenient background to implement some results based on 1393
that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of 1394
this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer 1395
to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1396
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperJoin, the new 1397
SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are 1398
gathered in the section on the SuperHyperJoin and the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. The 1399
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1400
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1401
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1402
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1403
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1404
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1405
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1406
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1407
formally called “ SuperHyperJoin” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 1408
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 1409
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this research are,
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperJoin
3. Extreme SuperHyperJoin 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1410
figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1411
References 1412
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1413
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 1414
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 1415
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 1416
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 1417
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 1418
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 1419
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 1420
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 1421
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 1422
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 1423
(2022) 242-263. 1424
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 1425
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 1426
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1427
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1428
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 1429
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 1430
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 1431
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 1432
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 1433
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 1434
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 1435
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 1436
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 1437
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 1438
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 1439
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 1440
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 1441
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 1442
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 1443
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 1444
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1445
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 1446
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 1447
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 1448
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 1449
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 1450
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 1451
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 1452
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 1453
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 1454
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 1455
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 1456
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 1457
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 1458
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 1459
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 1460
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 1461
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1462
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 1463
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 1464
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1465
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1466
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1467
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 1468
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1469
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1470
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1471
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1472
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1473
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 1474
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1475
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1476
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 1477
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1478
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1479
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 1480
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1481
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1483
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1484
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1485
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 1486
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 1487
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 1488
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 1489
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 1490
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 1491
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 1492
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 1493
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1494
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 1495
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 1496
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 1497
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 1498
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 1499
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 1500
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 1501
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 1502
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 1503
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 1504
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 1505
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 1506
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 1507
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 1508
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 1509
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 1510
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 1511
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 1512
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 1513
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1514
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 1515
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 1516
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 1517
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 1518
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 1519
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1520
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 1521
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 1523
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 1524
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 1525
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 1526
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 1527
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 1528
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 1529
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 1530
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 1531
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1532
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 1535
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 1536
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1537
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1538
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 1539
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1540
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1541
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1542
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 1543
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1544
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1545
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 1546
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1547
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1548
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1549
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 1550
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 1551
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 1552
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 1553
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 1554
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 1555
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 1556
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 1557
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 1558
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 1559
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 1560
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 1561
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 1562
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 1563
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 1564
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 1565
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Connections by Hyper Disconnections of SuperHyperJoin in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

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 Connections by Hyper Disconnections of SuperHyperJoin in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of SuperHyperJoin In

Preprint · February 2023

300 PUBLICATIONS 3,285 CITATIONS

Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project

On Fuzzy Logic View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections 2

Of SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9

SuperHyperJoin). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 10

pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 11

E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if 12

∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 13

Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 14

such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 15

|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 16

v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 17

∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if 18

∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 19

Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 20

Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 21

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic 22

rv-SuperHyperJoin. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). Assume a Neutrosophic 23

SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 24

SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 25

SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 26

re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic 27

rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 28

is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 29

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 30

Extreme SuperHyperJoin; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 32

e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, 33

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 34

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 35

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 36

Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 37

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; an Extreme 38

SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 39

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic 40

rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 41

is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 42

Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges 43

of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 44

SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a 46

Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 47

e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, 48

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 49

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 50

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 51

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 52

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 53

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 54

Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 55

Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 56

e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, 57

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 58

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 59

of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive 60

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 61

that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s 62