New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super Messy

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368599405
New Ideas In Cancer's Recognition And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super Messy
Preprint · February 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
311 PUBLICATIONS 3,729 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 17 February 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper 3
Closing On Super Messy 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperDominating). 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-SuperHyperDominating if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 13
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 14
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 15
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 16
v-SuperHyperDominating if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 17
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 18
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 19
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 20
e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic 21
v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating. 22
((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 23
(NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 24
(NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperDominating if 25
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic 26
re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic 27
rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 28
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 29
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive 30
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 31
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDominating; a Neutrosophic 32
SuperHyperDominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, 33
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and 34
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 35
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 36
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 37
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 38
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating; an 39
Extreme SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 40
v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) 42
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 43
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 44
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 45
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 46
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 47
SuperHyperDominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 48
coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 49
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating, 50
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating 51
and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 52
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 53
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 54
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 55
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 56
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating; and the Neutrosophic power 57
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating if 58
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic 59
re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic 60
rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 61
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 62
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive 63
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 64
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDominating; a Neutrosophic 65
V-SuperHyperDominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, 66
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and 67
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 69
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 70
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 71
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating; an 72
Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 73
v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) 75
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 76
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 77
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an 78
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 79
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 80
SuperHyperDominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 81
coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 82
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating, 83
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating 84
and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 85
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 86
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 87
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 88
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 89
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating; and 90
the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific 91
research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 92
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Two different types 93
of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 94
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 95
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 96
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 97
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 98
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 99
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 100
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 101
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 102
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 103
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 104
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 105
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 106
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 107
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 108
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 109
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 110
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 111
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 112
δ−SuperHyperDominating is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 113
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 114
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 115
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 116
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 117
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDominating is a 118
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 119
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 120
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 121
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 122
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 123
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 124
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 125
version of a SuperHyperDominating . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 126
make a SuperHyperDominating more understandable. For the sake of having 127
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 128
“SuperHyperDominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 129
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 130
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperDominating 131
. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating if the mentioned Table holds, 132
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 133
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 134
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 135
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 136
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 137
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 138
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 139
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 140
SuperHyperDominating . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of 141
previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all 142
SuperHyperDominating until the SuperHyperDominating, then it’s officially called a 143
“SuperHyperDominating” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperDominating . There are 144
some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a 145
“SuperHyperDominating ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 146
there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 147
SuperHyperDominating . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 148
SuperHyperDominating, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic 149
SuperHyperDominating” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating ”. The 150
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 151
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 152
assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 153
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a 154
SuperHyperDominating are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating” if 155
the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of 156
SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a 157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 158
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 159
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperDominating, SuperHyperStar, 160
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, 161
are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating”, 162
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 163
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 164
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating” where it’s 165
the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperDominating 166
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperDominating .] 167
SuperHyperDominating . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph 168
and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic 169
SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 170
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two 171
exceptions; it’s SuperHyperDominating if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 172
two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as 173
intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one 174
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 175
forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 176
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 177
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no 178
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as 179
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one 180
SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the 181
specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 182
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, 183
The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 184
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells 185
and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. 186
Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and 187
neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the 188
SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will 189
be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 190
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 191
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 192
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 193
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 194
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 195
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 196
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 197
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 198
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 199
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 200
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperDominating, SuperHyperStar, 201
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 202
either the longest SuperHyperDominating or the strongest SuperHyperDominating in 203
those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperDominating, called 204
SuperHyperDominating, and the strongest SuperHyperDominating, called Neutrosophic 205
SuperHyperDominating, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 206
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 207
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 208
of a SuperHyperDominating. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperDominating 209
but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperDominating. It, literarily, deforms 210
and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating 211
theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 212
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperDominating, Cancer’s 213
Neutrosophic Recognition 214
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 215
2 Background 216
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 217
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them date back on January 22, 218
2023. 219
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 220
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 221
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 222
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 223
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 224
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 225
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 226
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 227
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 228
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 229
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 230
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 231
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 232
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 233
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 234
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 235
majority of notions. 236
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 237
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 238
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 239
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 240
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 241
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 242
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 243
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 244
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 245
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 246
based on initial background. 247
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 248
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 249
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 250
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 251
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 252
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 253
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 254
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 255
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 256
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 257
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 258
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 259
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and SupeV-Closing Numbers as 260
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 261
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 262
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 263
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 264
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 265
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 266
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 267
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 268
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 269
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 270
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 271
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 272
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 273
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 274
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 275
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 276
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 277
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 278
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 279
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 280
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 281
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 282
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 283
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 284
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 285
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 286
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 287
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 288
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 289
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 290
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 291
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 292
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 293
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 294
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 295
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 296
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 297
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 298
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 299
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 300
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 301
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 302
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 303
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 304
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 305
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 306
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 307
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 308
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 309
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 310
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (V-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 311
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 312
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 313
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 314
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 315
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 316
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 317
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 318
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 319
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 320
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 321
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 322
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 323
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 324
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 325
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 326
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 327
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 328
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 329
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 330
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 331
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 332
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 333
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 334
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 335
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 336
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 337
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 338
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 339
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 340
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 341
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 342
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 343
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 344
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 345
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 346
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 347
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 348
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 349
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 350
proposed as book in Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 351
Scholar and has more than 3230 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 352
Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st 353
Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different 354
types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 355
SuperHyperGraph theory. 356
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 357
proposed as book in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 358
Scholar and has more than 4117 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 359
and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell 360
Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different 361
types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of 362
duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This 363
research book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 364
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 365
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 366
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 367
framework of Extreme SuperHyperDominating theory, Neutrosophic 368
SuperHyperDominating theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–38]. 369
Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 3230 and 370
4117 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [39, 40]. 371
3 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 372
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 373
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 374
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 375
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 376
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 377
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 378
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 379
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 380
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 381
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 382
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 383
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 384
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 385
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 386
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 387
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 388
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 389
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 390
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 391
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 392
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 393
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 394
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 395
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 396
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 397
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 398
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 399
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 400
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 401
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 402
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 403
formally called “ SuperHyperDominating” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 404
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 405
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 406
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 407
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 408
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 409
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 410
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 411
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 412
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 413
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 414
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 415
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperDominating, SuperHyperStar, 416
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 417
either the optimal SuperHyperDominating or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating 418
in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond 419
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two 420
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 421
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperDominating. There isn’t any 422
formation of any SuperHyperDominating but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 423
SuperHyperDominating. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 424
Question 3.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 425
find the “ amount of SuperHyperDominating” of either individual of cells or the groups 426
of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 427
SuperHyperDominating” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 428
cells? 429
Question 3.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 430
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 431
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 432
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 433
SuperHyperDominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating” on 434
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 435
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 436
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 437
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 438
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 439
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 440
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 441
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 442
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 443
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 444
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 445
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 446
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperDominating and 447
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating, are figured out in sections “ 448
SuperHyperDominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating”. In the sense of 449
tackling on getting results and in order to make sense about continuing the research, the 450
ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and 451
as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s 452
done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 453
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are 454
some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 455
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 456
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. 457
The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and 458
closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. 459
Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as 460
fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General 461
Results”, “ SuperHyperDominating”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating”, “Results 462
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 463
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 464
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 465
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperDominating”. The 466
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 467
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 468
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 469
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 470
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 471
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 472
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 473
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 474
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 475
4 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 476
Research On the Redeemed Ways 477
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 478
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [38],Definition 479
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.5,p.2), 480
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 481
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 482
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 483
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [38],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 484
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 485
(Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 486
to Ref. [38]. 487
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 488
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 489
Definition 4.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.1,p.1). 490
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 491
+
]− 0, 1 [. 492
Definition 4.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [38],Definition 2.2,p.2). 493
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 4.3. 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 4.4. 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 4.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [38],Definition 494
2.5,p.2). 495
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 496
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 497
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 498
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 499
1, 2, . . . , n); 500
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 501
V; 502
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 503
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 504
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 505
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 506
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 507
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 508
(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 . 509
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 510
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 511
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 512
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 513
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 514
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 515
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 516
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 517
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 518
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 519
Definition 4.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 520
(Ref. [38],Definition 2.7,p.3). 521
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 522
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 523
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 524
could be characterized as follow-up items. 525
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 526
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 527
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 528
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 529
HyperEdge; 530
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 531
SuperEdge; 532
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 533
SuperHyperEdge. 534
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 535
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 536
Definition 4.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [38], Definition 2.7, p.3). 537
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 538
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 539
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 540
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 541
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 542
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 543
Definition 4.8. 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 4.9. 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 4.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 544
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 545
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 546
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 547
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 548
1, 2, . . . , n); 549
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 550
V; 551
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 552
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 553
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 554
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 555
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 556
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 557
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 558
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 559
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 560
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 561
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 562
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 563
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 564
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 565
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 566
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 567
Definition 4.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 568
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 571
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 572
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 574
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 575
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 576
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 577
HyperEdge; 578
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 579
SuperEdge; 580
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 581
SuperHyperEdge. 582
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 583
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 584
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 585
Definition 4.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 586
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 587
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 588
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 589
Definition 4.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 590
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 591
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 592
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 593
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 594
given SuperHyperEdges; 595
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 596
SuperHyperEdges; 597
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 598
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 599
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 600
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 601
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 602
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 603
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 604
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 605
common SuperVertex. 606
Definition 4.14. 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 607
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 608
of following conditions hold: 609
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 610
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 611
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 612
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 613
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 614
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 615
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 616
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 617
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 618
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 619
Definition 4.15. (Characterization 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 ,
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 622
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 623
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 624
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 625
SuperHyperPath . 626
Definition 4.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 627
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 629
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 630
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 631
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 632
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 633
Definition 4.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 634
(NSHE)). (Ref. [38],Definition 5.4,p.7). 635
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 637
called 638
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 639
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 640
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 641
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 642
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 643
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 645
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 646
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 648
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 649
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 650
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 651
Definition 4.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 652
SuperHyperDominating). 653
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 655
E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 656
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating if 657
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 658
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating if 659
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 660
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 661
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating if 662
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 663
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating if 664
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 665
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 666
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 667
v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating. 669
Definition 4.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDominating). 670
Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is 672
called 673
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 674
v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating and 676
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 677
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 678
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 679
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 680
Extreme SuperHyperDominating; 681
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 682
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 685
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 686
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 687
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 688
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating; 689
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 690
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic 691
re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and 692
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 693
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 694
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 695
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 696
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 697
Extreme SuperHyperDominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 699
Extreme coefficient; 700
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 701
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic 702
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 705
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 706
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 707
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 708
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 709
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating; and the Neutrosophic power 710
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 711
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 712
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 715
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 716
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 717
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 718
the Extreme SuperHyperDominating; 719
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 720
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 723
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 724
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating; 727
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 728
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 731
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 732
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 733
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 734
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 735
Extreme SuperHyperDominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 737
Extreme coefficient; 738
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 739
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 743
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 744
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 745
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating; and the Neutrosophic power 748
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 749
Definition 4.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperDominating). 750
Then 752
(i) an δ−SuperHyperDominating is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 753
SuperHyperDominating such that either of the following expressions hold for the 754
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.23)
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
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 755
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (4.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 756
Expression (4.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 757
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDominating is a Neutrosophic kind of 758
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating such that either of the following 759
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 760
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 761
|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 (4.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 762
And the Expression (4.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 763
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 764
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating, there’s a need to 765
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 766
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 767
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 768
Definition 4.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 769
pair S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) 770
holds. 771
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 772
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 773
understandable. 774
Definition 4.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 775
pair S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 776
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperDominating, SuperHyperStar, 777
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 778
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 779
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 780
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic 781
SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 782
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 783
SuperHyperDominating. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 784
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 785

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(4.22)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.23)
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating, there’s a need to 786
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating”. The 787
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 788
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 789
assign to the values. 790
Definition 4.23. Assume a SuperHyperDominating. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 791
SuperHyperDominating if the Table (3) holds. 792
5 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating But As 793
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 794
Forms 795
Example 5.1. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair 796
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 797
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 798
SuperHyperDominating, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 799
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 800
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 801
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 802
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 803
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 804
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 805
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 806
SuperHyperDominating. 807
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
808
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating in the Neutrosophic Example (5.1)
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 811
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 812
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 813
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 814
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 815
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 816

818
straightforward. 821

822



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

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial =
5 × 3z 2 .
826

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
830
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating

= {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+233i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 3z 8 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating
= {V3i+13i=0 , V3i+113i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Quasi-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 3z 8 .

834
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

= 3 × 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating = {V3 , V6 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
838

= 4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
842




= {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.
= 3z 5 .
= {V3i+13i=0 , V11 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Quasi-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 11z 5 .
846

= 4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
850

Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating in the Neutrosophic Example (5.1)

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating = {E1 , E3 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating = {V1 , V6 }.
= 3 × 3z 3 .
854
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDominating = {E1 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating = {V1 , Vii68=4,5,6 }.
i=1
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial =

= 5 × 5z 5 .
858

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDominating = {E3 , E9 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating = {V1 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 3z 2 .
862

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating = {V1 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
866

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = z 2 .
870




C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating = {V2 , V7 , V17 }.
4 × 3z 3 .
874

C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating = {V1 , V2 , V7 , V17 }.
4 × 3z 4 .
878

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
2 × 4 × 3z 4 .



882
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 4 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating = {V3i+1i=03 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 4 .
886

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = 10z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating = {V1 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
890




894

C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 5 × 1z 2 .
898

6 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 899
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 900
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 901
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 902
Proposition 6.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 903
Then 904
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating =

|EESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
c
= {E3i+1 }i=0 3
.
|EESHG:(V,E) |
= 3z c 3 .
|EESHG:(V,E) |
c
= {V EXT ERN AL 3i+1 }i=0 3
.
|EESHG:(V,E) |
Y Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality 3z c 3 .
Proof. Let 905
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |
c 3 −1 c 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperDominating in the Example (6.2)
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 906
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 907
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 908
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDominating. The latter 909
is straightforward. 910
Example 6.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 911
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 912
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDominating. 913
Proposition 6.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 914
Then 915
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating =

|EESHG:(V,E) |
c
= {E3i+1 }i=0 3
.
|EESHG:(V,E) |
= 3z c 3 .
|EESHG:(V,E) |
c
= {V EXT ERN AL 3i+1 }i=0 3
.
|EESHG:(V,E) |
Y Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality 3z c 3 .
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

Proof. Let 916
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |
c 3 −1 c 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 917
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 918

Example 6.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 922
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 923
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 924
Proposition 6.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 926
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating in the Neutrosophic Example (6.6)
Then 927
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 928
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 929
There’s a new way to redefine as 930

Example 6.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 934
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 935
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 936
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 937
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. 938
Proposition 6.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 939
ESHB : (V, E). Then 940

= {Ea ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
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
= {VaEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Proof. Let 941
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 942
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 943

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperDominating. Thus the 946
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDominating 947
could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart 948
could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 949
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperDominating taken from a connected Neutrosophic 950
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 951
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 952
solution 953
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 954
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating in the Example (6.8)
Example 6.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 955
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 956
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 957
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 958
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 959
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. 960
Proposition 6.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 961
ESHM : (V, E). Then 962

= {Ea ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
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
= {VaEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Proof. Let 963
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 965

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperDominating. Thus the 968
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDominating 969
could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart 970
could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 971
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 972
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 973
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 974
solution 975
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 976
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 977
Example 6.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 978
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 979
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 980
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 981
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 982
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. 983
Proposition 6.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 984
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 985
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 986
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 988

Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating in the Example (6.10)
is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperDominating. Thus the notion 991
of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDominating could be 992
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperDominating proposes some longest 993
SuperHyperDominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 994
Example 6.12. In the Neutrosophic Figure (28), the connected Neutrosophic 996
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 997
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 998
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 999
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1000
7 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1002
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1003
For the SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating, and the 1004
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating, some general results are introduced. 1005
Remark 7.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating is “redefined” 1006
on the positions of the alphabets. 1007
Corollary 7.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then 1008
N eutrosophic SuperHyperDominating =
{theSuperHyperDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperDominating
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperDominating. }
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating in the Neutrosophic Example
(6.12)
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1009
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1010
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1011
Corollary 7.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1012
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating and 1013
SuperHyperDominating coincide. 1014
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1016
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperDominating. 1017
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1019
SuperHyperDominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperDominating. 1020
Corollary 7.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1021
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating is 1022
its SuperHyperDominating and reversely. 1023
Corollary 7.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperDominating, 1024
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1025
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating 1026
is its SuperHyperDominating and reversely. 1027
Corollary 7.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1028
SuperHyperDominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperDominating isn’t 1029
well-defined. 1030
Corollary 7.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1031
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1032
SuperHyperDominating isn’t well-defined. 1033
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1035
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1036
SuperHyperDominating isn’t well-defined. 1037
Corollary 7.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1038
SuperHyperDominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperDominating is 1039
well-defined. 1040
Corollary 7.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1041
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating is well-defined if and only if its 1042
SuperHyperDominating is well-defined. 1043
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1045
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating is well-defined if and only if its 1046
SuperHyperDominating is well-defined. 1047
Proposition 7.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1048
is 1049
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1050
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1051
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1052
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1053
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1054
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1055
Proposition 7.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1056
∅ is 1057
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1058
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1059
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1060
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1061
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1062
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1063
Proposition 7.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1064
independent SuperHyperSet is 1065
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1066
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1067
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1068
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1069
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1070
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1071
Proposition 7.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1072
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperDominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1073
maximal 1074
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1075
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1076
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1077
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1078
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1079
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1080
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1081
Proposition 7.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1082
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1083
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1084
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1085
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1086
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1087
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1088
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1089
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1090
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperDominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the number 1092
of 1093
(i) : the SuperHyperDominating; 1094
(ii) : the SuperHyperDominating; 1095
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDominating; 1096
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating; 1097
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating; 1098
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating. 1099
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1100
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1101
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1103
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDominating; 1104
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperDominating; 1105
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperDominating; 1106
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating; 1107
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating; 1108
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating. 1109
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1110
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1113
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1114
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1115
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1116
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1120
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1121
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1122
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1125
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1126
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1127
is a 1128
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1132
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1133
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1134
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1137
number of 1138
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1142
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1143
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1144
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1145
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1146
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1147
Proposition 7.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1149
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1150
(iv) : SuperHyperDominating; 1154
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1155
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1156
Proposition 7.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1157
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1158
Proposition 7.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1159
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1160
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1161
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1165
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1167
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1169
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1170
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1174
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1175
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1176
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1178
SuperHyperDominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1180
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1181
of a dual 1182
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1186
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1187
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1188
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1190
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1191
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1192
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1198
Proposition 7.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1199
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1200
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1201
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1202
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1203
Proposition 7.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1204
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such 1205
that 1206
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1207
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1208
Proposition 7.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1209
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating, then 1210
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 1211
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1212
Proposition 7.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1213
Then 1214
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1215
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1216
Proposition 7.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1217
which is connected. Then 1218
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1219
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1220
Proposition 7.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1221
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1222
SuperHyperDominating; 1223
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1224
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1225
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1226
a dual SuperHyperDominating. 1227
Proposition 7.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1228
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1229
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1231
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1232
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1233
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1234
dual SuperHyperDominating. 1235
Proposition 7.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperDominating. Then 1236
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1237
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1239
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1240
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1241
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1242
Proposition 7.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperDominating. Then 1244
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1245
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1247
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1248
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1249
Proposition 7.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1251
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperDominating; 1252
(ii) Γ = 1; 1253
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1254
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperDominating. 1255
Proposition 7.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1256
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1257
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1258
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1259
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1260
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1261
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1262
Proposition 7.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1263
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1264
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1266
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1267
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1268
Proposition 7.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1270
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1271
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1273

bnc ; 1274
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1275
Proposition 7.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1277
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1278
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1279
SuperHyperDominating for N SHF; 1280
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1281
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1282
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1283
SuperHyperDominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1284
Proposition 7.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1285
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1286
SuperHyperSet. Then 1287
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1288
SuperHyperDominating for N SHF; 1289
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1290

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1291
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1292
SuperHyperDominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1293
Proposition 7.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1294
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1295
SuperHyperSet. Then 1296
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1297
SuperHyperDominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1298
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1299

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1300
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperDominating 1301
for N SHF : (V, E). 1302
Then following statements hold; 1304
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1305
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating, then S is an 1306
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1307
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1308
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating, then S is a dual 1309
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1310
Then following statements hold; 1312
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1313
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating, then S is an 1314
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperDominating; 1315
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1316
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating, then S is a dual 1317
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperDominating. 1318
Proposition 7.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1319
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1320
statements hold; 1321
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1322
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1323
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1324
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1326
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1328
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1329
Proposition 7.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1330
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1331
statements hold; 1332
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1333
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1335
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1337
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1339
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1340
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1342
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1343
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1344
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1346
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1348
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1351
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1353
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1354
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1355
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1357
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1359
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating; 1360
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1362
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1364
SuperHyperDominating. Then following statements hold; 1365
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1366
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1368
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1370
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1373
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1375
SuperHyperDominating. Then following statements hold; 1376
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1377
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1379
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1381
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating. 1384
8 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1385
Neutrosophic Recognition 1386
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1387
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1388
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1389
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1390
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1391
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1392
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1393
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1394
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1395
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1396
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1397
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1398
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1399
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1400
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1401
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1402
happened and what’s done. 1403
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1404
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1405
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1406
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1407
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperDominating, SuperHyperStar, 1408
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1409
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating or the Neutrosophic 1410
SuperHyperDominating in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1411
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

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

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
9 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1412
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1413
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1414
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1415
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1416
featured. 1417
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1418
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1419
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1420
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1421
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1422
Figure 30. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

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

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1424
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1425
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1426
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1427
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1428
Neutrosophic featured. 1429
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1430
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1431
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1432
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1433
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1434
11 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1436
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1437
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1438
The SuperHyperDominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating are 1439
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1440
Question 11.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1441
recognitions? 1442
Question 11.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperDominating 1443
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating? 1444
Question 11.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1445
compute them? 1446
Question 11.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1447
SuperHyperDominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating? 1448
Problem 11.5. The SuperHyperDominating and the Neutrosophic 1449
SuperHyperDominating do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re 1450
based on SuperHyperDominating, are there else? 1451
Problem 11.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1452
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1453
Problem 11.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1454
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1455
12 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1456
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1457
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1458
highlighted. 1459
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1460
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1461
SuperHyperDominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 1462
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based 1463
on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1464
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating, finds the convenient 1465
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1466
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1467
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1468
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1469
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperDominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1470
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1471
the SuperHyperDominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. The 1472
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1473
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1474
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1475
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1476
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1477
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1478
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1479
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1480
formally called “ SuperHyperDominating” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 1481
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1482
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this 1483
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1484
References 1485
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1486
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 1487
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperDominating
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 1488
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 1489
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 1490
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 1491
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 1492
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 1493
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 1494
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 1495
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 1496
(2022) 242-263. 1497
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and SupeV-Closing Numbers as 1498
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 1499
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1500
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1501
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 1502
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 1503
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 1504
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 1505
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 1506
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 1507
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 1508
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 1509
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 1510
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 1511
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 1512
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 1513
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 1514
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 1515
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 1516
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 1517
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1518
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 1519
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 1520
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 1521
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 1522
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 1523
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 1524
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 1525
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 1526
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 1527
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 1528
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 1529
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 1530
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 1531
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 1532
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 1533
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 1534
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1535
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 1536
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 1537
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1538
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1539
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1540
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 1541
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1542
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1543
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1544
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1545
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1546
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 1547
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1548
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1549
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 1550
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1551
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1552
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 1553
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1554
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1556
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1557
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1558
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 1559
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 1560
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 1561
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 1562
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 1563
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 1564
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 1565
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 1566
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1567
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 1568
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 1569
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 1570
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 1571
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 1572
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 1573
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 1574
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 1575
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 1576
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 1577
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (V-)Definitions And Polynomials To 1578
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 1579
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 1580
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 1581
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 1582
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 1583
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 1584
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 1585
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 1586
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1587
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 1588
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 1589
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 1590
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 1591
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 1592
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1593
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 1594
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 1596
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 1597
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 1598
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 1599
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 1600
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 1601
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 1602
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 1603
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 1604
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1605
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 1608
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 1609
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1610
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1611
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 1612
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1613
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1614
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1615
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 1616
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1617
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1618
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 1619
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1620
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1621
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1622
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 1623
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 1624
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 1625
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 1626
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 1627
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 1628
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 1629
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 1630
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 1631
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 1632
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 1633
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 1634
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 1635
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 1636
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 1637
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 1638
View publication stats

New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super Messy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super Messy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Cancer's Recognition And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · February 2023

311 PUBLICATIONS 3,729 CITATIONS

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper 3

Closing On Super Messy 4

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

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

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

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

v-SuperHyperDominating if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 17

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 18

that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 19

Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 20

e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic 21

v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating. 22

((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 23

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

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

it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic 26

re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic 27

rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 28

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 29

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

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 31

that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDominating; a Neutrosophic 32

SuperHyperDominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, 33

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and 34

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 35

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 36

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 37

Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 38

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating; an 39

Extreme SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 40

e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic 41

v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) 42

for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 43

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 44

number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 45

Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 46

SuperHyperDominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 48

coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 49

of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating, 50

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating 51

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 53

the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 54

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 55

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 56

is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating if 58

it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic 59

re-SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating, and Neutrosophic 60

rv-SuperHyperDominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 61

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 62