New Ideas On Super Isolation by Hyper Perfectness of SuperHyperPerfect in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368537379
New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of SuperHyperPerfect In

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

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23266.81602
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
303 PUBLICATIONS 3,401 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
On Fuzzy Logic 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 On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 2
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
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 ; 13
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 14
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 15
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 16
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 17
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 18
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 19
SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 20
re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic 21
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). Assume a Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 23
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 24
SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 25
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 27
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 28
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive 29
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 30
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if 31
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 32
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 33
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 34
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 35
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 36
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 37
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect 38
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 39
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 41
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 42
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 43
Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 44
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 45
form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 46
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 47
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 48
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 50
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 51
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 52
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 53
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 54
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is 55
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s 56
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 57
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 59
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 60
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 61
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 62
a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, 63
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and 64
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 65
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 66
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 67
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 68
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; an 69
Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 70
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 71
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 72
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 73
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 74
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet 75
S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 76
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the 77
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 78
SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 79
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a 81
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 82
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 83
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 84
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 85
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 86
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; and the 87
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific 88
research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 89
SuperHyperPerfect and Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. Two different types of 90
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 91
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 92
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 93
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 94
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 95
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 96
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 97
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 98
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 99
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 100
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 101
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 102
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 103
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 104
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 105
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 106
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 107
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 108
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 109
δ−SuperHyperPerfect is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 110
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 111
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 112
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 113
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 114
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperPerfect is a maximal 115
Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such 116
that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 117
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 118
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 119
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 120
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 121
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 122
version of a SuperHyperPerfect . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 123
SuperHyperPerfect more understandable. For the sake of having Neutrosophic 124
SuperHyperPerfect, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperPerfect ”. 125
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 126
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 127
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperPerfect . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 128
SuperHyperPerfect if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 129
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 130
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number 131
of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of 132
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 133
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 134
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 135
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 136
based on a SuperHyperPerfect . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 137
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 138
have all SuperHyperPerfect until the SuperHyperPerfect, then it’s officially called a 139
“SuperHyperPerfect” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperPerfect . There are some 140
instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperPerfect ”. 141
These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in 142
the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperPerfect . For the 143
sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect, there’s a need to “redefine” the 144
notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect 145
”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 146
the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels 147
to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 148
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperPerfect 149
are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect” if the intended Table holds. It’s 150
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 151
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect more 152
understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 153
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 154
SuperHyperPerfect, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, 155
and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 156
SuperHyperPerfect”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 157
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 158
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 159
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect” where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic 160
value from all the SuperHyperPerfect amid the maximum value amid all 161
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPerfect .] SuperHyperPerfect . A graph is a 162
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 163
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 164
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 165
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 166
SuperHyperPerfect if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 167
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 168
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 169
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 170
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 171
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 172
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 173
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 174
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 175
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 176
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 177
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 178
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 179
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 180
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 181
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 182
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 183
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 184
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 185
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 186
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 187
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 188
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 189
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 190
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 191
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 192
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 193
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 194
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperPerfect, 195
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 196
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperPerfect or the strongest 197
SuperHyperPerfect in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 198
SuperHyperPerfect, called SuperHyperPerfect, and the strongest SuperHyperPerfect, 199
called Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect, some general results are introduced. Beyond 200
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 201
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 202
any style of a SuperHyperPerfect. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperPerfect 203
but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperPerfect. It, literarily, deforms and 204
it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect theory, 205
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 206
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperPerfect, Cancer’s 207
Neutrosophic Recognition 208
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 209
1 Background 210
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 211
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them date back on January 22, 212
2023. 213
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 214
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 215
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 216
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 217
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 218
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 219
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 220
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 221
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 222
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 223
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 224
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 225
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 226
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 227
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 228
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 229
majority of notions. 230
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 231
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 232
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 233
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 234
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 235
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 236
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 237
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 238
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 239
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 240
based on initial background. 241
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 242
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 243
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 244
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 245
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 246
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 247
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 248
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 249
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 250
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 251
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 252
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 253
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 254
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 255
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 256
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 257
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 258
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 259
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 260
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 261
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 262
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 263
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 264
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 265
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 266
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 267
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 268
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 269
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 270
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 271
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 272
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 273
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 274
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 275
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 276
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 277
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 278
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 279
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 280
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 281
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 282
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 283
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 284
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 285
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 286
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 287
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 288
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 289
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 290
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 291
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 292
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 293
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 294
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 295
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 296
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 297
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 298
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 299
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 300
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 301
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 302
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 303
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 304
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 305
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 306
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 307
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 308
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 309
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 310
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 311
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 312
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 313
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 314
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 315
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 316
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 317
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 318
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 319
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 320
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 321
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 322
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 323
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 324
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 325
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 326
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 327
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 328
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 329
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 330
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 331
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 332
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 333
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 334
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 335
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 336
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 337
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 338
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 339
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 340
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 341
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 342
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 343
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 344
proposed as book in Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 345
Scholar and has more than 3230 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 346
Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st 347
Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different 348
types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 349
SuperHyperGraph theory. 350
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 351
proposed as book in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 352
Scholar and has more than 4117 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 353
and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell 354
Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different 355
types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of 356
duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This 357
research book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 358
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 359
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 360
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 361
framework of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect theory, Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect 362
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–38]. Two popular scientific 363
research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 3230 and 4117 respectively, on 364
neutrosophic science is on [39, 40]. 365
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 366
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 367
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 368
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 369
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 370
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 371
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 372
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 373
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 374
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 375
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 376
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 377
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 378
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 379
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 380
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 381
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 382
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 383
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 384
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 385
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 386
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 387
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 388
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 389
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 390
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 391
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 392
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 393
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 394
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 395
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 396
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 397
formally called “ SuperHyperPerfect” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 398
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 399
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 400
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 401
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 402
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 403
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 404
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 405
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 406
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 407
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 408
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 409
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperPerfect, SuperHyperStar, 410
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 411
either the optimal SuperHyperPerfect or the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect in those 412
Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 413
SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two 414
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 415
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperPerfect. There isn’t any formation 416
of any SuperHyperPerfect but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperPerfect. 417
It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 418
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 419
find the “ amount of SuperHyperPerfect” of either individual of cells or the groups of 420
cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 421
SuperHyperPerfect” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 422
cells? 423
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 424
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 425
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 426
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 427
SuperHyperPerfect” and “Extreme SuperHyperPerfect” on “SuperHyperGraph” and 428
“Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 429
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 430
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 431
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 432
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 433
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 434
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 435
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 436
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 437
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 438
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 439
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 440
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperPerfect and 441
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperPerfect” and 442
“Extreme SuperHyperPerfect”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order to 443
make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and 444
Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 445
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 446
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to 447
origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend 448
the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, 449
in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 450
SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and 451
as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section 452
“General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are 453
well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, 454
“General Results”, “ SuperHyperPerfect”, “Extreme SuperHyperPerfect”, “Results on 455
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 456
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 457
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 458
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperPerfect”. The 459
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 460
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 461
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 462
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 463
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 464
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 465
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 466
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 467
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 468
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 469
Research On the Redeemed Ways 470
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 471
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 472
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.5,p.2), 473
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 474
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 475
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 476
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [38],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 477
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 478
(Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 479
to Ref. [38]. 480
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 481
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 482
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.1,p.1). 483
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 484
+
]− 0, 1 [. 485
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2). 486
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 487
2.5,p.2). 488
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 489
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 490
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 491
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 492
1, 2, . . . , n); 493
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 494
V; 495
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 496
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 497
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 498
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 499
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 500
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 501
(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 . 502
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 503
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 504
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 505
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 506
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 507
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 508
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 509
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 510
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 511
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 512
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 513
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 514
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 515
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 516
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 517
could be characterized as follow-up items. 518
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 519
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 520
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 521
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 522
HyperEdge; 523
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 524
SuperEdge; 525
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 526
SuperHyperEdge. 527
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 528
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 529
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3). 530
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 531
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 532
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 533
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 534
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 535
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 536
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)). 537
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 538
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 539
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 540
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 541
1, 2, . . . , n); 542
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 543
V; 544
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 545
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 546
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 547
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 548
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 549
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ).
P
(viii) i0 550
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 551
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 552
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 553
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 554
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 555
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 556
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 557
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 558
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 559
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 560
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 561
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 564
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 565
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 567
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 568
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 569
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 570
HyperEdge; 571
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 572
SuperEdge; 573
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 574
SuperHyperEdge. 575
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 576
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 577
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 578
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 579
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 580
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 581
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 582
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 583
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 584
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 585
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 586
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 587
given SuperHyperEdges; 588
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 589
SuperHyperEdges; 590
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 591
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 592
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 593
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 594
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 595
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 596
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 597
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 598
common SuperVertex. 599
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 600
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 601
of following conditions hold: 602
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 603
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 604
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 605
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 606
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 607
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 608
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 609
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 610
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 611
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 612
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 613
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; 615
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 616
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 617
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 618
SuperHyperPath . 619
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 620
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 622
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 623
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 624
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 625
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 626
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 627
(NSHE)). (Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). 628
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 630
called 631
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 632
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 633
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 634
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 635
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 636
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 638
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 639
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 641
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 642
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 643
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 644
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 645
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 647
E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 648
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 649
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 650
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 651
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 652
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 653
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 654
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 655
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 656
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 657
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 658
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 659
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 661
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 662
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 664
called 665
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 666
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 668
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 669
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 670
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 671
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 672
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 673
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 674
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 677
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 678
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 681
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 682
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 683
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 685
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 686
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 687
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 688
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 690
Extreme coefficient; 691
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 692
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 693
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 695
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 696
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 697
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 698
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 699
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 700
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 701
Neutrosophic coefficient; 702
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 703
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 706
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 707
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 708
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 710
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 711
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 714
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 715
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 718
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 719
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 722
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 723
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 724
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 725
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 727
Extreme coefficient; 728
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 729
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 732
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 733
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 734
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 735
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 736
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 737
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 738
Neutrosophic coefficient. 739
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperPerfect). 740
Then 742
(i) an δ−SuperHyperPerfect is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 743
SuperHyperPerfect such that either of the following expressions hold for the 744
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 745
|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 746
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 747
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperPerfect is a Neutrosophic kind of 748
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect such that either of the following Neutrosophic 749
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 750
s∈S: 751
|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. 752
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 753
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 754
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect, there’s a need to 755
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 756
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 757
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 758
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 759
pair S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) 760
holds. 761
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 762
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 763
understandable. 764
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 765
pair S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 766
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperPerfect, SuperHyperStar, 767
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 768
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 769
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 770
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic 771
SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 772
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 773
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect 774
more Neutrosophicly understandable. 775

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 776
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect”. The 777
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 778
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 779
assign to the values. 780
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperPerfect. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 781
SuperHyperPerfect if the Table (3) holds. 782
4 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 783
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 784
Forms 785
Example 4.1. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair 786
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 787
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 788
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 789
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 790
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 791
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 792
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 793
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 794
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 795
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
796
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Extreme 799
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 800
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 801
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a 802
Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every 803
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperPerfect in the Extreme Example (4.1)
given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 804

805

808
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .
811




C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
814
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3i+17i=0 }.
817
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
820




3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
823
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 5 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 5 .
826

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
829




3 × 2z 2 .
832

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

835

3 × 3z 2 .
838




841

844

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V2 , V7 , V17 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial =
(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .
847




C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
850

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V27 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
(1 × 1 × 2 + 1)z 4 .
853
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V2i+1i=05 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 6 .
856




859

862

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
865



5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 866
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 867
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 868
SuperHyperClasses. 869
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 870
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 871
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 872
Figure 23. a Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme Super-

HyperPerfect in the Example (5.2)
There’s a new way to redefine as 873
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 874
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 875
straightforward. 876
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 877
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 878
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 879
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 880
Then 881
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

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

SuperHyperPerfect in the Extreme Example (5.4)
Proof. Let 882
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 883

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 888
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 889
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 890
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 891
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

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

SuperHyperPerfect in the Extreme Example (5.6)
Proof. Let 892
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 893
a new way to redefine as 894

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 898
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 899
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 900
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 901
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 902
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 903
Then 904
C(N SHG)Extreme 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)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 905
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Emini |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) | , Vmin i |Pi
ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) |+1
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 906

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 910
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 911
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 912
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect in the Example (5.8)
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 913
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 914
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 915
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 916
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
The latter is straightforward. 917
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 918
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 919
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 920
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 921
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 922
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 923
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 924
ESHM : (V, E). Then 925

{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)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 926
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 927
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 928

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 931
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 932
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 933
Figure 27. a Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperPerfect in the Example (5.10)
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 934
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 935
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 936
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 937
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 938
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 939
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 940
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 941
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 942
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 943
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 944
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 945
Figure 28. a Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect in the Extreme Example (5.12)
Then, 946
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 947
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 948
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 949

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 952
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 953
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 954
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 955
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 956
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 957
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 958
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 959
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 960
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 961
Results But As The Initial Motivation 962
For the SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme SuperHyperPerfect, and the Extreme 963
SuperHyperPerfect, some general results are introduced. 964
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect is “redefined” on the 965
positions of the alphabets. 966
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. Then 967
Extreme SuperHyperP erf ect =

{theSuperHyperP erf ectof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperP erf ect
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperP erf ect. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 968
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 969
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 970
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 971
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect and SuperHyperPerfect 972
coincide. 973
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a Extreme 975
SuperHyperPerfect if and only if it’s a SuperHyperPerfect. 976
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 978
SuperHyperPerfect if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperPerfect. 979
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 980
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperPerfect is its 981
SuperHyperPerfect and reversely. 982
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperPerfect, 983
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 984
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperPerfect is its 985
SuperHyperPerfect and reversely. 986
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 987
SuperHyperPerfect isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperPerfect isn’t 988
well-defined. 989
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 990
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperPerfect isn’t 991
well-defined. 992
Then its Extreme SuperHyperPerfect isn’t well-defined if and only if its 995
SuperHyperPerfect isn’t well-defined. 996
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 997
SuperHyperPerfect is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperPerfect is well-defined. 998
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 999
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperPerfect is 1000
well-defined. 1001
Then its Extreme SuperHyperPerfect is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperPerfect 1004
is well-defined. 1005
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1006
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1007
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1008
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1009
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1010
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1011
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1012
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1013
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1014
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1015
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1016
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1017
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1018
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1019
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1020
independent SuperHyperSet is 1021
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1022
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1023
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1024
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1025
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1026
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1027
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1028
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperPerfect/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 1029
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1030
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1031
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1032
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1033
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1034
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1035
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1036
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1037
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1038
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1039
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1040
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1041
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1042
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1043
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1044
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1045
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperPerfect/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 1047
(i) : the SuperHyperPerfect; 1048
(ii) : the SuperHyperPerfect; 1049
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperPerfect; 1050
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect; 1051
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect; 1052
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect. 1053
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1054
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1055
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1057
(i) : the dual SuperHyperPerfect; 1058
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperPerfect; 1059
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperPerfect; 1060
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect; 1061
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect; 1062
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperPerfect. 1063
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1064
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1067
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1068
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1069
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1070
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1074
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1075
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1076
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1079
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1080
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1081
is a 1082
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1086
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1087
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1088
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1091
number of 1092
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1096
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1097
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1098
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1099
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1100
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1101
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1103
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1104
(iv) : SuperHyperPerfect; 1108
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1109
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1110
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1111
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1112
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1113
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1114
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1115
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1119
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1121
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1122
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1123
setting of dual 1124
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1128
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1129
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1130
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1132
SuperHyperPerfect/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1134
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1135
dual 1136
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1140
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1141
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1142
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1144
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1145
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1146
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1152
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1153
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1154
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1155
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1156
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1157
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1158
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1159
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1160
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1161
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then 1162
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 1163
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1164
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1165
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1166
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1167
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1168
connected. Then 1169
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1170
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1171
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1172
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1173
SuperHyperPerfect; 1174
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1175
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1176
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1177
a dual SuperHyperPerfect. 1178
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1179
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1180
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1181
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1182
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1183
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1184
dual SuperHyperPerfect. 1185
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPerfect. Then 1186
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1187
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1189
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1190
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1191
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1192
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPerfect. Then 1194
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1195
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1197
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1198
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1199
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1201
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperPerfect; 1202
(ii) Γ = 1; 1203
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1204
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperPerfect. 1205
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1206
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1207
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1208
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1209
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1210
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1211
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1212
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1213
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1214
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1216
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1217
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1218
SuperHyperPerfect. 1219
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1220
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1221
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1222
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 1223
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1224
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1226
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1227
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1228
SuperHyperPerfect for N SHF; 1229
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1230
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1231
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1232
SuperHyperPerfect for N SHF : (V, E). 1233
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1234
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1235
SuperHyperSet. Then 1236
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1237
SuperHyperPerfect for N SHF; 1238
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1239
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1240
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperPerfect for 1241
N SHF : (V, E). 1242
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1243
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1244
SuperHyperSet. Then 1245
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect 1246
for N SHF : (V, E); 1247
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1248
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1249
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperPerfect for 1250
N SHF : (V, E). 1251
following statements hold; 1253
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1254
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 1255
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1257
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then S is a dual 1258
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1259
following statements hold; 1261
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1262
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 1263
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1265
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 1266
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1268
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1269
hold; 1270
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1271
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1272
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1273
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1275
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1277
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1278
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme 1279
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 1280
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1281
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1283
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1285
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1287
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1288
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1290
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1291
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1293
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1295
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1298
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1300
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1301
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1303
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1305
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect; 1306
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1308
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperPerfect. Then following statements hold; 1310
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1311
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1313
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1315
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1318
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperPerfect. Then following statements hold; 1320
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1321
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1323
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1325
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperPerfect. 1328
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1329
Recognition 1330
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1331
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1332
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1333
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1334
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1335
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1336
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1337
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1338
long-term Extreme function. 1339
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1340
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1341
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1342
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1343
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1344
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1345
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1346
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1347
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1348
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1349
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Extreme 1350
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperPerfect, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1351
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 1352
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect or the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect in those Extreme 1353
Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1354
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1355
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1356
SuperHyperModel 1357
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1358
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1359
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1360
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1361
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1362
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1363
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1364
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 1365
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1366
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1367
SuperHyperModel 1368
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1369
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1370
Figure 29. a Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

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

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1371
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1372
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1373
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1374
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1375
is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 1376
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1377
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1378
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1379
The SuperHyperPerfect and the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect are defined on a 1380
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1381
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1382
recognitions? 1383
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperPerfect and 1384
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect? 1385
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1386
compute them? 1387
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1388
SuperHyperPerfect and the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect? 1389
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperPerfect and the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect do a 1390
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperPerfect, 1391
are there else? 1392
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1393
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1394
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1395
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1396
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1397
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1398
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1399
highlighted. 1400
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1401
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1402
SuperHyperPerfect. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 1403
Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the 1404
new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, Extreme 1405
SuperHyperPerfect, finds the convenient background to implement some results based 1406
on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases 1407
of this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer 1408
to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1409
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperPerfect, the new 1410
SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are 1411
gathered in the section on the SuperHyperPerfect and the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 1412
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 1413
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1414
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1415
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1416
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1417
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1418
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1419
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1420
formally called “ SuperHyperPerfect” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 1421
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1422
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperPerfect
3. Extreme SuperHyperPerfect 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1423
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1424
References 1425
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 1426
SuperHyperGraph”, Extreme Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 1427
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 1428
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/ExtremeSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 1429
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 1430
2. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Co-degree and Extreme Degree alongside Chromatic 1431
Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Extreme Hypergraphs”, J 1432
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 1433
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 1434
Extreme Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Extreme 1435
Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) (2022) 242-263. 1436
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 1437
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 1438
(Extreme)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1439
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1440
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 1441
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 1442
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Extreme Graphs.” 1443
CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 2022. CERN 1444
European Organization for Nuclear Research, 1445
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 1446
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 1447
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 1448
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 1449
(Extreme) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 1450
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 1451
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 1452
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique inside 1453
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 1454
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 1455
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 1456
Recognition On Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 (doi: 1457
10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 1458
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 1459
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 1460
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 1461
(Extreme) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 1462
SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 1463
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 1464
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 1465
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 1466
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Extreme) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1467
2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 1468
11. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 1469
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Extreme 1470
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 1471
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 1472
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 1473
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Extreme) 1474
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 1475
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 1476
13. Henry Garrett, “(Extreme) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions 1477
And (Extreme) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 1478
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1479
14. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Extreme 1480
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Extreme Recognitions In Special 1481
ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1482
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1483
15. Henry Garrett, “Extreme 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1484
SuperHyperFunction To Use Extreme SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Extreme 1485
Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 1486
16. Henry Garrett, “(Extreme) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 1487
SuperHyperModelled (Extreme) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010043 1488
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 1489
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Extreme) SuperHyperForcing And (Extreme) 1490
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Extreme) 1491
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 1492
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1493
ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1496
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1497
19. Henry Garrett, “(Extreme) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 1498
Featuring (Extreme) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2022, 1499
2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 1500
20. Henry Garrett, “(Extreme) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and 1501
SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph With 1502
(Extreme) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Extreme) 1503
SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022120540 (doi: 1504
10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 1505
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 1506
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 1507
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 1508
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 1509
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 1510
Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 1511
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 1512
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Extreme 1513
SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Extreme 1514
SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 1515
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 1516
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 1517
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1518
2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 1519
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 1520
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 1521
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Extreme) SuperHyperGraphs”, 1522
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 1523
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 1524
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 1525
SuperHyperModels Named (Extreme) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 1526
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 1527
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 1528
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique on 1529
Cancer’s Recognition called Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 1530
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 1531
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Extreme 1532
Recognition Forwarding Extreme SuperHyperClique on Extreme 1533
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30092.80004). 1534
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 1535
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Extreme) 1536
SuperHyperGraphs With (Extreme) SuperHyperClique”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 1537
10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 1538
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Extreme Types of Extreme Regions titled Extreme 1539
Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Extreme Recognition modeled in the Form 1540
of Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 1541
10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 1542
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Extreme) Failed SuperHyperStable To 1543
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Extreme) SuperHyperGraphs”, 1544
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 1545
ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 1548
33. Henry Garrett, “(Extreme) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1549
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Extreme) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 1550
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 1551
34. Henry Garrett, “Extreme 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 1552
To Use Extreme SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Extreme Recognition And 1553
Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 1554
35. Henry Garrett, “(Extreme) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions 1555
And (Extreme) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1556
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 1557
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Extreme) SuperHyperForcing And (Extreme) 1558
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Extreme) 1559
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 1560
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Extreme Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 1561
Extreme SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 1562
10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 1563
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Extreme Preliminaries to Study Some 1564
Extreme Notions Based on Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Extreme 1565
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 1566
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 1567
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Extreme Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 1568
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 1569
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 1570
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondExtremeGraphs.pdf). 1571
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Extreme Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - 1572
Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. 1573
ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 (http://fs.unm.edu/ExtremeDuality.pdf). 1574
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Isolation by Hyper Perfectness of SuperHyperPerfect in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super Isolation by Hyper Perfectness of SuperHyperPerfect in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of SuperHyperPerfect In

Preprint · February 2023

303 PUBLICATIONS 3,401 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

On Fuzzy Logic View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 2

SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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 ; 13

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 14

Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 15

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 16

Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 17

such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 18

|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 19

SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 20

re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic 21

rv-SuperHyperPerfect. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). Assume a Neutrosophic 22

SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 23

SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 24

SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 25

re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic 26

rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 27

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 28

of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive 29

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 30

that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if 31

it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 32

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 33

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 34

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 35

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 36

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 37

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect 38

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

re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic 40

rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 41

N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 42

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

consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 45

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 47

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 48

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 49

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 50

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 51

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 52

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 53

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 54

corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s 56

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 57

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 58

cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 60

SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 61

a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, 63

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and 64

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 65