New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368537004
New Ideas In Cancer's Recognition And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy
Preprint · February 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
302 PUBLICATIONS 3,394 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
On Combinatorics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 16 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 In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism 3
On Super Vacancy 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
SuperHyperPerfect). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 10
ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } 11
and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called Neutrosophic 12
e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 13
∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if 14
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 15
Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 16
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 17
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; Neutrosophic 18
rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 19
∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 20
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 21
SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 22
re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic 23
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). Assume a Neutrosophic 24
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 25
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 26
SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 27
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 29
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 30
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive 31
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 32
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if 33
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 34
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 35
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 36
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 37
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 38
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 39
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect 40
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 41
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 43
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 44
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 45
Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 46
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 47
form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 48
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 49
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 50
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 52
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 53
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 54
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 55
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 56
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is 57
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s 58
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 59
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 61
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 62
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 63
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 64
a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, 65
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and 66
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 67
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 68
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 69
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 70
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; an 71
Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 72
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 73
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 74
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 75
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 76
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet 77
S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 78
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the 79
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 80
SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 81
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a 83
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 84
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 85
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 86
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 87
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 88
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; and the 89
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific 90
research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 91
SuperHyperPerfect and Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. Two different types of 92
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 93
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 94
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 95
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 96
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 97
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 98
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 99
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 100
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 101
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 102
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 103
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 104
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 105
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 106
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 107
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 108
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 109
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 110
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 111
δ−SuperHyperPerfect is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 112
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 113
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 114
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 115
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 116
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperPerfect is a maximal 117
Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such 118
that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 119
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 120
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 121
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 122
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 123
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 124
version of a SuperHyperPerfect . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 125
SuperHyperPerfect more understandable. For the sake of having Neutrosophic 126
SuperHyperPerfect, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperPerfect ”. 127
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 128
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 129
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperPerfect . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 130
SuperHyperPerfect if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 131
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 132
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number 133
of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of 134
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 135
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 136
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 137
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 138
based on a SuperHyperPerfect . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 139
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 140
have all SuperHyperPerfect until the SuperHyperPerfect, then it’s officially called a 141
“SuperHyperPerfect” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperPerfect . There are some 142
instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperPerfect ”. 143
These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in 144
the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperPerfect . For the 145
sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect, there’s a need to “redefine” the 146
notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect 147
”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 148
the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels 149
to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 150
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperPerfect 151
are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect” if the intended Table holds. It’s 152
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 153
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect more 154
understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 155
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 156
SuperHyperPerfect, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, 157
and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 158
SuperHyperPerfect”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 159
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 160
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 161
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect” where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic 162
value from all the SuperHyperPerfect amid the maximum value amid all 163
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPerfect .] SuperHyperPerfect . A graph is a 164
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 165
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 166
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 167
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 168
SuperHyperPerfect if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 169
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 170
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 171
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 172
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 173
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 174
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 175
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 176
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 177
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 178
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 179
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 180
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 181
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 182
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 183
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 184
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 185
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 186
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 187
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 188
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 189
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 190
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 191
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 192
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 193
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 194
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 195
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 196
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperPerfect, 197
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 198
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperPerfect or the strongest 199
SuperHyperPerfect in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 200
SuperHyperPerfect, called SuperHyperPerfect, and the strongest SuperHyperPerfect, 201
called Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect, some general results are introduced. Beyond 202
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 203
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 204
any style of a SuperHyperPerfect. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperPerfect 205
but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperPerfect. It, literarily, deforms and 206
it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect theory, 207
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 208
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperPerfect, Cancer’s 209
Neutrosophic Recognition 210
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 211
1 Background 212
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 213
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them date back on January 22, 214
2023. 215
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 216
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 217
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 218
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 219
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 220
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 221
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 222
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 223
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 224
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 225
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 226
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 227
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 228
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 229
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 230
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 231
majority of notions. 232
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 233
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 234
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 235
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 236
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 237
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 238
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 239
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 240
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 241
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 242
based on initial background. 243
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 244
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 245
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 246
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 247
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 248
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 249
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 250
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 251
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 252
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 253
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 254
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 255
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 256
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 257
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 258
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 259
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 260
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 261
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 262
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 263
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 264
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 265
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 266
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 267
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 268
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 269
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 270
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 271
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 272
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 273
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 274
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 275
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 276
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 277
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 278
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 279
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 280
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 281
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 282
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 283
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 284
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 285
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 286
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 287
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 288
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 289
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 290
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 291
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 292
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 293
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 294
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 295
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 296
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 297
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 298
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 299
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 300
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 301
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 302
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 303
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 304
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 305
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 306
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 307
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 308
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 309
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 310
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 311
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 312
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 313
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 314
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 315
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 316
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 317
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 318
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 319
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 320
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 321
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 322
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 323
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 324
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 325
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 326
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 327
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 328
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 329
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 330
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 331
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 332
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 333
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 334
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 335
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 336
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 337
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 338
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 339
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 340
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 341
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 342
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 343
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 344
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 345
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 346
proposed as book in Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 347
Scholar and has more than 3230 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 348
Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st 349
Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different 350
types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 351
SuperHyperGraph theory. 352
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 353
proposed as book in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 354
Scholar and has more than 4117 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 355
and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell 356
Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different 357
types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of 358
duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This 359
research book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 360
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 361
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 362
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 363
framework of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect theory, Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect 364
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–38]. Two popular scientific 365
research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 3230 and 4117 respectively, on 366
neutrosophic science is on [39, 40]. 367
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 368
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 369
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 370
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 371
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 372
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 373
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 374
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 375
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 376
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 377
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 378
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 379
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 380
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 381
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 382
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 383
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 384
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 385
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 386
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 387
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 388
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 389
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 390
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 391
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 392
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 393
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 394
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 395
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 396
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 397
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 398
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 399
formally called “ SuperHyperPerfect” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 400
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 401
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 402
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 403
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 404
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 405
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 406
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 407
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 408
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 409
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 410
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 411
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperPerfect, SuperHyperStar, 412
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 413
either the optimal SuperHyperPerfect or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect in those 414
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 415
SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two 416
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 417
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperPerfect. There isn’t any formation 418
of any SuperHyperPerfect but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperPerfect. 419
It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 420
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 421
find the “ amount of SuperHyperPerfect” of either individual of cells or the groups of 422
cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 423
SuperHyperPerfect” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 424
cells? 425
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 426
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 427
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 428
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 429
SuperHyperPerfect” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect” on “SuperHyperGraph” 430
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations 431
to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion 432
with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to 433
make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some 434
results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, 435
“Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 436
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 437
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 438
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 439
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 440
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 441
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 442
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperPerfect and 443
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperPerfect” and 444
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 445
order to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and 446
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, 447
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, 448
titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 449
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 450
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 451
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 452
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 453
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 454
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 455
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 456
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 457
SuperHyperPerfect”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect”, “Results on 458
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 459
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 460
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 461
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperPerfect”. The 462
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 463
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 464
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 465
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 466
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 467
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 468
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 469
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 470
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 471
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 472
Research On the Redeemed Ways 473
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 474
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 475
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.5,p.2), 476
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 477
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 478
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 479
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [38],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 480
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 481
(Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 482
to Ref. [38]. 483
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 484
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 485
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.1,p.1). 486
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 487
+
]− 0, 1 [. 488
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2). 489
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 490
2.5,p.2). 491
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 492
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 493
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 494
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 495
1, 2, . . . , n); 496
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 497
V; 498
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 499
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 500
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 501
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 502
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 503
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 504
(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 . 505
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 506
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 507
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 508
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 509
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 510
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 511
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 512
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 513
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 514
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 515
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 516
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 517
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 518
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 519
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 520
could be characterized as follow-up items. 521
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 522
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 523
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 524
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 525
HyperEdge; 526
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 527
SuperEdge; 528
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 529
SuperHyperEdge. 530
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 531
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 532
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3). 533
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 534
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 535
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 536
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 537
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 538
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 539
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)). 540
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 541
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 542
0
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V ; 543
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 544
1, 2, . . . , n); 545
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 546
V; 547
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 548
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 549
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 550
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 551
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 552
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 553
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 554
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 555
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 556
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 557
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 558
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 559
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 560
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 561
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 562
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 563
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 564
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 567
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 568
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 570
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 571
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 572
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 573
HyperEdge; 574
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 575
SuperEdge; 576
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 577
SuperHyperEdge. 578
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 579
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 580
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 581
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 582
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 583
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 584
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 585
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 586
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 587
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 588
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 589
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 590
given SuperHyperEdges; 591
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 592
SuperHyperEdges; 593
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 594
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 595
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 596
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 597
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 598
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 599
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 600
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 601
common SuperVertex. 602
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 603
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 604
of following conditions hold: 605
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 606
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 607
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 608
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 609
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 610
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 611
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 612
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 613
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 614
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 615
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 616
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; 618
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 619
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 620
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 621
SuperHyperPath . 622
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 623
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 625
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 626
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 627
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 628
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 629
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 630
(NSHE)). (Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). 631
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 633
called 634
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 635
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 636
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 637
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 638
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 639
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 641
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 642
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 644
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 645
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 646
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 647
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 648
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 650
E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 651
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 652
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 653
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 654
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 655
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 656
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 657
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 658
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 659
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 660
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 661
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 662
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 664
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 665
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 667
called 668
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 669
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 671
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 672
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 673
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 674
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 675
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 676
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 677
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 680
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 681
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 684
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 685
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 686
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 688
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 689
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 690
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 691
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 693
Extreme coefficient; 694
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 695
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 696
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 698
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 699
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 700
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 701
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 702
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 703
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 704
Neutrosophic coefficient; 705
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 706
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 709
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 710
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 711
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 713
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 714
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 717
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 718
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 721
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 722
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 725
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 726
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 727
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 728
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 730
Extreme coefficient; 731
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 732
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 735
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 736
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 737
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 738
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 739
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 740
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 741
Neutrosophic coefficient. 742
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperPerfect). 743
Then 745
(i) an δ−SuperHyperPerfect is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 746
SuperHyperPerfect such that either of the following expressions hold for the 747
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 748
|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 749
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 750
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperPerfect is a Neutrosophic kind of 751
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect such that either of the following Neutrosophic 752
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)
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 753
s∈S: 754
|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. 755
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 756
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 757
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect, there’s a need to 758
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 759
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 760
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 761
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 762
pair S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) 763
holds. 764
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 765
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 766
understandable. 767
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 768
pair S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 769
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperPerfect, SuperHyperStar, 770
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 771
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 772
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 773
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic 774
SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 775
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 776
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect 777
more Neutrosophicly understandable. 778

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect, there’s a need to 779
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect”. The 780
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 781
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 782
assign to the values. 783
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperPerfect. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 784
SuperHyperPerfect if the Table (3) holds. 785
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 786
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 787
Forms 788
Example 4.1. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair 789
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 790
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 791
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 792
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 793
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 794
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 795
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 796
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 797
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 798
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 799
SuperHyperPerfect. 800
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
801
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 804
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 805
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 806
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 807
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 808
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect in the Neutrosophic Example (4.1)
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 809

811
straightforward. 814

815
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .
819




C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
823
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3i+17i=0 }.
827
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
831




3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
835
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 5 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 5 .
839


Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect in the Neutrosophic Example (4.1)

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
843

3 × 2z 2 .
847

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



851

3 × 3z 2 .
855

859



863

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V2 , V7 , V17 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial =
(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .
867

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
871




C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
875
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V2i+1i=05 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 6 .
879


883

887

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
891



5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 892
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 893
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 894
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 895
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 896
Then 897
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 898
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperPerfect in the Example (5.2)
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 899
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 900
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 901
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 902
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 904
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 905
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 906
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 907
Then 908
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 3

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

Proof. Let 909
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 910
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 911

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 915
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 916
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 917
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 919
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect in the Neutrosophic Example (5.6)
Then 920
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 921
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 922
There’s a new way to redefine as 923

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 927
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 928
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 929
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 930
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 931
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 932
ESHB : (V, E). Then 933
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

= (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}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 934
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 935
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 936

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 939
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 940
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect in the Example (5.8)
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 941
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 942
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 943
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 944
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 945
solution 946
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
The latter is straightforward. 947
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 948
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 949
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 950
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 951
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 952
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 953
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 954
ESHM : (V, E). Then 955

{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}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 956
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 957
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 958

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 961
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 962
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect in the Example (5.10)
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 963
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 964
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 965
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 966
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 967
solution 968
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 969
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 970
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 971
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 972
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 973
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 974
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 975
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 976
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 977
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect in the Neutrosophic Example
(5.12)
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 978
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 979
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 980
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 981

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 984
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 985
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 986
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 987
Example 5.12. In the Neutrosophic Figure (28), the connected Neutrosophic 988
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 989
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 990
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 991
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 992
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 994
Results But As The Initial Motivation 995
For the SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect, and the Neutrosophic 996
SuperHyperPerfect, some general results are introduced. 997
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect is “redefined” on the 998
positions of the alphabets. 999
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. Then 1000
N eutrosophic SuperHyperP erf ect =

{theSuperHyperP erf ectof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperP erf ect
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperP erf ect. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1001
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1002
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1003
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1004
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect and 1005
SuperHyperPerfect coincide. 1006
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1008
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if and only if it’s a SuperHyperPerfect. 1009
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1011
SuperHyperPerfect if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperPerfect. 1012
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1013
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect is its 1014
SuperHyperPerfect and reversely. 1015
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperPerfect, 1016
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1017
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect is its 1018
SuperHyperPerfect and reversely. 1019
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1020
SuperHyperPerfect isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperPerfect isn’t 1021
well-defined. 1022
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1023
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1024
SuperHyperPerfect isn’t well-defined. 1025
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1028
SuperHyperPerfect isn’t well-defined. 1029
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1030
SuperHyperPerfect is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperPerfect is well-defined. 1031
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1032
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect is well-defined if and only if its 1033
SuperHyperPerfect is well-defined. 1034
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect is well-defined if and only if its 1037
SuperHyperPerfect is well-defined. 1038
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1039
is 1040
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1041
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1042
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1043
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1044
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1045
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1046
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1047
∅ is 1048
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1049
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1050
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1051
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1052
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1053
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1054
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1055
independent SuperHyperSet is 1056
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1057
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1058
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1059
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1060
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1061
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1062
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1063
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperPerfect/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 1064
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1065
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1066
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1067
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1068
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1069
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1070
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1071
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1072
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1073
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1074
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1075
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1076
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1077
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1078
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1079
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1080
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperPerfect/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 1082
(i) : the SuperHyperPerfect; 1083
(ii) : the SuperHyperPerfect; 1084
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperPerfect; 1085
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect; 1086
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect; 1087
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect. 1088
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1089
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1090
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1092
(i) : the dual SuperHyperPerfect; 1093
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperPerfect; 1094
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperPerfect; 1095
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect; 1096
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect; 1097
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect. 1098
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1099
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1102
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1103
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1104
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1105
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1109
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1110
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1111
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1114
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1115
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1116
is a 1117
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1121
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1122
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1123
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1126
number of 1127
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1131
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1132
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1133
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1134
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1135
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1136
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1138
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1139
(iv) : SuperHyperPerfect; 1143
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1144
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1145
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1146
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1147
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1148
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1149
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1150
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1154
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1156
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1158
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1159
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1163
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1164
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1165
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1167
SuperHyperPerfect/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1169
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1170
of a dual 1171
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1175
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1176
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1177
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1179
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1180
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1181
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1187
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1188
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1189
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1190
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1191
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1192
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1193
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1194
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1195
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1196
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1197
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then 1198
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 1199
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1200
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1201
Then 1202
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1203
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1204
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1205
which is connected. Then 1206
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1207
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1208
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1209
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1210
SuperHyperPerfect; 1211
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1212
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1213
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1214
a dual SuperHyperPerfect. 1215
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1216
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1217
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1218
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1219
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1220
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1221
dual SuperHyperPerfect. 1222
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPerfect. Then 1223
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1224
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1226
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1227
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1228
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1229
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPerfect. Then 1231
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1232
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1234
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1235
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1236
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1238
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperPerfect; 1239
(ii) Γ = 1; 1240
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1241
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperPerfect. 1242
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1243
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1244
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1245
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1246
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1247
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1248
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1249
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1250
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1251
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1253
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1254
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1255
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1257
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1258
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1259

bnc ; 1260
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1261
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1263
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1264
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1265
SuperHyperPerfect for N SHF; 1266
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1267
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1268
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1269
SuperHyperPerfect for N SHF : (V, E). 1270
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1271
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1272
SuperHyperSet. Then 1273
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1274
SuperHyperPerfect for N SHF; 1275
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1276

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1277
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperPerfect for 1278
N SHF : (V, E). 1279
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1280
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1281
SuperHyperSet. Then 1282
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect 1283
for N SHF : (V, E); 1284
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1285

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1286
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperPerfect for 1287
N SHF : (V, E). 1288
Then following statements hold; 1290
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1291
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 1292
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1294
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then S is a dual 1295
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1296
Then following statements hold; 1298
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1299
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 1300
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1302
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 1303
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1305
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1306
statements hold; 1307
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1308
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1309
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1310
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1312
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1314
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1315
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1316
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1317
statements hold; 1318
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1319
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1321
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1323
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1325
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1326
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1328
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1329
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1330
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1332
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1334
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1337
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1339
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1340
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1341
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| >b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1343
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1345
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1346
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1348
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1350
SuperHyperPerfect. Then following statements hold; 1351
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1352
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1354
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1356
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1359
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1361
SuperHyperPerfect. Then following statements hold; 1362
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1363
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1365
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1367
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1370
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1371
Neutrosophic Recognition 1372
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1373
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1374
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1375
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1376
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1377
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1378
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1379
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1380
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1381
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1382
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1383
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1384
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1385
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1386
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1387
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1388
happened and what’s done. 1389
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1390
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1391
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1392
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1393
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperPerfect, SuperHyperStar, 1394
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1395
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect or the Neutrosophic 1396
SuperHyperPerfect in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1397
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1398
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1399
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1400
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1401
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1402
featured. 1403
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

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

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1404
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1405
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1406
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1407
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the 1408
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (29), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 1409
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1410
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1411
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1412
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1413
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1414
Neutrosophic featured. 1415
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1416
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1417
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1418
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1419
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1420
SuperHyperModel (30), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 1421
Figure 30. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

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

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1422
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1423
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1424
The SuperHyperPerfect and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect are defined on a 1425
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1426
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1427
recognitions? 1428
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperPerfect and 1429
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect? 1430
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1431
compute them? 1432
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1433
SuperHyperPerfect and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect? 1434
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperPerfect and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect do a 1435
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperPerfect, 1436
are there else? 1437
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1438
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1439
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1440
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1441
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1442
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1443
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1444
highlighted. 1445
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1446
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1447
SuperHyperPerfect. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 1448
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 1449
the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 1450
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect, finds the convenient background to implement some 1451
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Neutrosophic 1452
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 1453
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 1454
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1455
SuperHyperPerfect, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. 1456
Some general results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperPerfect and the 1457
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews 1458
have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled 1459
the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and 1460
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s 1461
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the 1462
cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded 1463
styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based 1464
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with 1465
the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “ 1466
SuperHyperPerfect” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” 1467
refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the 1468
SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this research are, figured
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperPerfect
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1469
out, pointed out and spoken out. 1470
References 1471
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1472
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 1473
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 1474
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 1475
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 1476
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 1477
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 1478
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 1479
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 1480
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 1481
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 1482
(2022) 242-263. 1483
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 1484
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 1485
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1486
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1487
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 1488
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 1489
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 1490
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 1491
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 1492
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 1493
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 1494
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 1495
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 1496
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 1497
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 1498
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 1499
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 1500
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 1501
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 1502
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 1503
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1504
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 1505
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 1506
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 1507
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 1508
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 1509
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 1510
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 1511
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 1512
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 1513
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 1514
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 1515
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 1516
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 1517
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 1518
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 1519
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 1520
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1521
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 1522
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 1523
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1524
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1525
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1526
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 1527
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1528
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1529
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1530
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1531
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1532
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 1533
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1534
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1535
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 1536
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1537
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1538
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 1539
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1540
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1542
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1543
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1544
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 1545
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 1546
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 1547
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 1548
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 1549
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 1550
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 1551
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 1552
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1553
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 1554
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 1555
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 1556
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 1557
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 1558
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 1559
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 1560
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 1561
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 1562
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 1563
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 1564
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 1565
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 1566
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 1567
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 1568
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 1569
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 1570
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 1571
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 1572
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1573
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 1574
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 1575
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 1576
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 1577
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 1578
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1579
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 1580
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 1582
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 1583
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 1584
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 1585
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 1586
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 1587
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 1588
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 1589
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 1590
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1591
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 1594
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 1595
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1596
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1597
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 1598
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1599
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1600
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1601
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 1602
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1603
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1604
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 1605
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1606
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1607
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1608
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 1609
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 1610
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 1611
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 1612
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 1613
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 1614
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 1615
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 1616
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 1617
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 1618
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 1619
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 1620
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 1621
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 1622
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 1623
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 1624
View publication stats

New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy

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 in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Cancer's Recognition And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · February 2023

302 PUBLICATIONS 3,394 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

On Combinatorics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism 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

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

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

and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called Neutrosophic 12

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

∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if 14

∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 15

Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 16

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 17

Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; Neutrosophic 18

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

∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 20

|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 21

SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 22

re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic 23

rv-SuperHyperPerfect. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). Assume a Neutrosophic 24

SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 25

SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 26

SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 27

re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic 28

rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 29

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 30

of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive 31

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 32

that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if 33

it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 34

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 35

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 36

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 37

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 38

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 39

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect 40

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 41

re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic 42

rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 43

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

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

consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 47

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 49

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 50

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 51

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 52

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 53

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 54

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 55

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 56

corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s 58

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 59

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 60

cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 62

SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 63

a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, 65