New Ideas On Super Harmony by Hyper K-Function of SuperHyperK-Domination in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368786722
New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of SuperHyperK-

Domination In Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · February 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23299.58404
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
336 PUBLICATIONS 4,424 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Fuzzy Logic View project
On Combinatorics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 25 February 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 2
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 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
SuperHyperK-Domination). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 10
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11
V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination if 13
|E 0 | = k, ∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃Vc ∈ V, Vc ∈ Ea , Eb ; Neutrosophic 14
re-SuperHyperK-Domination if 15
|E 0 | = k, ∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃Vc ∈ V, Vc ∈ Ea , Eb ; and 16
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperK-Domination if 18
|V 0 | = k, ∀Va ∈ VN SHG \ V 0 , ∃Vb ∈ V 0 , ∃Ec ∈ E, Va , Vb ∈ Vc ; Neutrosophic 19
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination if 20
|V 0 | = k, ∀Va ∈ VN SHG \ V 0 , ∃Vb ∈ V 0 , ∃Ec ∈ E, Va , Vb ∈ Vc ; and 21
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 23
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, 24
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination. ((Neutrosophic) 25
SuperHyperK-Domination). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 26
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 27
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s 28
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 29
re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and 30
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 31
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 32
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 33
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 34
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; a 35
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 36
e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 37
v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and 38
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 39
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 41
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 42
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination 43
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 44
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 46
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 47
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 48
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 49
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 50
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; and 51
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 52
SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 53
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 56
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 57
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 58
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 59
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 60
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Neutrosophic 61
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 62
V-SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 63
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 66
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 67
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 68
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; a 69
Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 70
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 73
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 74
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 75
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 76
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; an Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination 77
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 78
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 81
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 82
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 83
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 84
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; and 85
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 86
SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 87
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 90
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 91
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 92
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 93
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 94
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; 95
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this 96
scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 97
SuperHyperK-Domination and Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination. Two different 98
types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and 99
the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 100
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 101
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 102
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 103
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 104
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 105
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 106
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 107
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 108
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 109
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 110
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 111
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 112
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 113
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 114
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 115
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 116
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 117
δ−SuperHyperK-Domination is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 118
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 119
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 120
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 121
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 122
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperK-Domination is a 123
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 124
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 125
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 126
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 127
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 128
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 129
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 130
version of a SuperHyperK-Domination . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 131
make a SuperHyperK-Domination more understandable. For the sake of having 132
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 133
“SuperHyperK-Domination ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 134
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 135
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 136
SuperHyperK-Domination . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if 137
the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 138
HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 139
with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 140
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 141
“The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 142
HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 143
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 144
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 145
based on a SuperHyperK-Domination . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 146
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 147
have all SuperHyperK-Domination until the SuperHyperK-Domination, then it’s 148
officially called a “SuperHyperK-Domination” but otherwise, it isn’t a 149
SuperHyperK-Domination . There are some instances about the clarifications for the 150
main definition titled a “SuperHyperK-Domination ”. These two examples get more 151
scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 152
SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperK-Domination . For the sake of having a 153
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 154
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination” and a “Neutrosophic 155
SuperHyperK-Domination ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 156
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 157
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 158
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 159
Table holds. And a SuperHyperK-Domination are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 160
SuperHyperK-Domination” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 161
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 162
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination more 163
understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 164
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 165
SuperHyperK-Domination, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 166
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 167
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination”, “Neutrosophic 168
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 169
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 170
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination” where it’s 171
the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperK-Domination 172
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 173
SuperHyperK-Domination .] SuperHyperK-Domination . A graph is a 174
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 175
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 176
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 177
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 178
SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 179
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 180
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 181
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 182
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 183
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 184
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 185
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 186
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 187
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 188
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 189
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 190
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 191
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 192
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 193
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 194
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 195
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 196
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 197
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 198
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 199
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 200
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 201
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 202
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 203
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 204
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 205
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 206
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 207
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperK-Domination, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 208
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest 209
SuperHyperK-Domination or the strongest SuperHyperK-Domination in those 210
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperK-Domination, called 211
SuperHyperK-Domination, and the strongest SuperHyperK-Domination, called 212
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, some general results are introduced. Beyond 213
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 214
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 215
any style of a SuperHyperK-Domination. There isn’t any formation of any 216
SuperHyperK-Domination but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 217
SuperHyperK-Domination. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 218
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination theory, SuperHyperGraphs, 219
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 220
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperK-Domination, Cancer’s 221
Neutrosophic Recognition 222
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 223
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 224
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 225
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 226
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 227
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 228
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 229
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 230
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 231
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 232
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 233
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 234
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 235
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 236
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 237
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 238
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 239
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 240
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 241
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 242
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 243
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 244
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 245
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 246
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 247
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 248
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 249
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 250
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 251
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 252
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 253
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 254
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 255
formally called “ SuperHyperK-Domination” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 256
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 257
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 258
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 259
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 260
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 261
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 262
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 263
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 264
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 265
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 266
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 267
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperK-Domination, SuperHyperStar, 268
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 269
either the optimal SuperHyperK-Domination or the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination 270
in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that 271
in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two 272
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 273
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperK-Domination. There isn’t any 274
formation of any SuperHyperK-Domination but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 275
SuperHyperK-Domination. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 276
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 277
find the “ amount of SuperHyperK-Domination” of either individual of cells or the 278
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 279
of SuperHyperK-Domination” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 280
group of cells? 281
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 282
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 283
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled “SuperHyperGraphs”. 284
Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ SuperHyperK-Domination” and 285
“Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme 286
SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 287
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 288
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 289
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 290
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 291
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 292
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 293
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 294
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 295
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 296
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 297
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 298
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperK-Domination and 299
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination, are figured out in sections “ 300
SuperHyperK-Domination” and “Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination”. In the sense of 301
tackling on getting results and in K-Domination to make sense about continuing the 302
research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are 303
introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out 304
to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 305
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there 306
are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 307
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 308
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The 309
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 310
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 311
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 312
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 313
SuperHyperK-Domination”, “Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination”, “Results on 314
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 315
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 316
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 317
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperK-Domination”. 318
The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 319
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 320
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 321
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 322
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 323
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 324
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 325
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 326
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 327
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 328
Research On the Redeemed Ways 329
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 330
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [96],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [96],Definition 331
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [96],Definition 2.5,p.2), 332
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [96],Definition 333
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [96], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 334
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [96],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 335
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [96],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 336
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 337
(Ref. [96],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 338
to Ref. [96]. 339
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 340
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 341
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [96],Definition 2.1,p.1). 342
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 343
+
]− 0, 1 [. 344
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [96],Definition 2.2,p.2). 345
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A single

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

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

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [96],Definition 346
2.5,p.2). 347
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 348
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E), where 349
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 350
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 351
1, 2, . . . , n); 352
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 353
V; 354
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 355
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 356
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 357
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 358
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 359
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 360
(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 . 361
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 362
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 363
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 364
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 365
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 366
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 367
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 368
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 369
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 370
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 371
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 372
(Ref. [96],Definition 2.7,p.3). 373
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an K-Dominationed pair 374
S = (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 375
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 376
could be characterized as follow-up items. 377
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 378
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 379
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 380
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 381
HyperEdge; 382
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 383
SuperEdge; 384
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 385
SuperHyperEdge. 386
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse types 387
of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 388
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [96], Definition 2.7, p.3). 389
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following for 390
x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 391
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 392
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 393
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 394
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 395
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

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

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

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 396
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 397
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E), where 398
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 399
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 400
1, 2, . . . , n); 401
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 402
V; 403
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 404
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 405
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 406
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 407
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 408
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 409
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 410
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 411
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 412
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 413
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 414
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 415
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 416
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 417
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 418
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 419
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 420
S = (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 423
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 424
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 426
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 427
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 428
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 429
HyperEdge; 430
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 431
SuperEdge; 432
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 433
SuperHyperEdge. 434
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have some 435
restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 436
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 437
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 438
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 439
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 440
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 441
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 442
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 443
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 444
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 445
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 446
given SuperHyperEdges; 447
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 448
SuperHyperEdges; 449
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 450
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 451
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 452
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 453
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 454
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 455
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 456
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 457
common SuperVertex. 458
Definition 3.14. Let an K-Dominationed 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 459
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 460
of following conditions hold: 461
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 462
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 463
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 464
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 465
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 466
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 467
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 468
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 469
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 470
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 471
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 472
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an K-Dominationed 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; 474
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 475
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 476
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 477
SuperHyperPath . 478
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 479
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an K-Dominationed 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 481
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 482
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 483
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 484
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 485
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 486
(NSHE)). (Ref. [96],Definition 5.4,p.7). 487
S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. 489
Then E is called 490
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 491
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 492
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 493
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 494
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 495
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 497
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 498
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 500
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 501
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 502
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 503
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 504
SuperHyperK-Domination). 505
S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 507
E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 508
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination if 509
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ V, such that 510
V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ Ea , Eb ; 511
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination if 512
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ V, such that 513
V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ Ea , Eb ; and 514
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 515
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination if 516
∀Va ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Vb ∈ E 0 , ∃E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ∈ E, such that 517
Va , Vb ∈ E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ; 518
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination if 519
∀Va ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Vb ∈ E 0 , ∃E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ∈ E, such that 520
Va , Vb ∈ E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ; and 521
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 522
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 523
e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, 524
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and Neutrosophic 525
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination. 526
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperK-Domination). 527
S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. 529
Then E is called 530
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 531
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 534
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 535
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 536
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 537
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; 538
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 539
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 542
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 543
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 544
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 545
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 546
SuperHyperK-Domination; 547
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 548
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 552
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 553
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 554
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 555
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 556
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 557
Extreme coefficient; 558
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if 559
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 560
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 562
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 563
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 564
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 565
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 566
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 567
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Neutrosophic 568
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 569
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 570
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 573
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 575
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 576
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; 577
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 578
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 581
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 582
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 583
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 584
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 585
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 587
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 591
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 592
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 593
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 594
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 596
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if 598
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 599
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 601
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 602
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 603
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 604
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 605
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 606
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Neutrosophic 607
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 608
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperK-Domination). 609
S = (V, E). Then 611
(i) an δ−SuperHyperK-Domination is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 612
SuperHyperK-Domination such that either of the following expressions hold for 613
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 614
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 615
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 616
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperK-Domination is a Neutrosophic kind of 617
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination such that either of the following 618
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 619
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 620
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 621
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 622
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 623
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, there’s a need to 624
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 625
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 626
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 627
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 628
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if 629
the Table (1) holds. 630
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more 631
ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more understandable. 632
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 633
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic 634
SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , 635
SuperHyperK-Domination, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 636
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic 637
SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic 638
SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic 639
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table 640
(2) holds. 641
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 642
SuperHyperK-Domination. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 643
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination more Neutrosophicly understandable. 644
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, there’s a need to 645
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination”. The 646
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 647
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 648
assign to the values. 649
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperK-Domination. It’s redefined a 650
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if the Table (3) holds. 651

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination in the Extreme Example (16.3)
4 Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination But As The 652
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 653
Forms 654
Example 4.1. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an K-Dominationed 655
pair S = (V, E) in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 656
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 657
SuperHyperK-Domination, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 658
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 659
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 660
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 661
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 662
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a Extreme 663
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 664
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination. 665
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei }i6=2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z.
E4 ∼ E2 → 2z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {Vi }i6=1,2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .
V4 ∼ V2 , V1 → 3z 2 .
666
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 669
E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 670
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 671
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 672

Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 673
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 674
SuperHyperK-Domination. 675
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei }4i=1 .

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = z 0 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {Vi }i6=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {Vi }4i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = z 4 .
[Two SuperHyperVertices are dominated by all non-isolated elements inside.]
676
straightforward. 679
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei }4i=1 .

680


C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei }i6=2,5 .

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {V3 , O}
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial
= z6.
684
• On the Figure (??), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 685

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination = {E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = z 14 .OntheF igure(6
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination

= {E3i+1 , E3j+23 }3i,j=0 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 3z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination
= {V3i+1 , V3j+11 }3i,j=0 .
= 3 × 3z 3 .
688

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination =

{E15 , E16 , E17 }.
= 6 × 5 × 3z 7 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination =
{V12 , V6 , V8 }.
= 5 × 5 × 4z 4 .
692

{E15 , E16 , E17 }.
= 6 × 5 × 3z.
{V12 , V6 , V8 }.
= 5 × 5 × 4z 6 .
696


= {E3i+1 , E3j+23 }3i,j=0 .
= 3 × 3z 4 .
= {V3i+1 , V3j+11 }3i,j=0 .
= 3 × 3z 11 .
700

{E5 }.
= z6.
{V12 , V6 , V8 }.
= 5 × 5 × 4z 6 .
704




{E1 , E3 }.
= z6.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {V1 , V6 }.
= 3 × 3z 3 .
708

= {Vi }i6=4,6,9,10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial =
= 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2z 5 .
712


{E1 , E3 }.
= z6.
= 3 × 3z 3 .
716

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {V1 }.
720
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination = {E1 , E4 }.




724

728

= {V2 , V7 , V17 , V27 }.
= 8 × 5 × 2z 14 .
732




= {V2 , V7 , V17 , V27 }.
= 8 × 5 × 2z 14 .
736

= {E3i+1 i=03 }.
= 3z 2 .
= {V3i+1 i=03 }.
= 3z 9 .
740


= {E6 }.
= 10z 10 .
= {V1 }.
= z |VN SHG |−1 .
744

= {E2 }.
= 2z.
= {V1 }.
= 10z 10 .
748




= {E2 , E4 }.
= 4z 2 .
= {V3 , V6 }.
= 5z 16 .
752
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 753
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 754
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 755
SuperHyperClasses. 756
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 757

= {E3i+1 |EN SHG | }.
i=0 3

= 3z 2 .
EXT ERN AL
= {V3i+1 |EN SHG | }.
i=0 3

= 3z s .
Proof. Let 758
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
759
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 760
There’s a new way to redefine as 761
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 762
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperK-Domination. The 763
latter is straightforward. 764
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 765
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 766
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperK-Domination. 767
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 768
Figure 23. a Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperK-Domination in the Example (16.5)
Then 769

= {E3i+1 |EN SHG | }.
i=0 3

= 3z 2 .C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = z s .
EXT ERN AL
= {V3i+1 |EN SHG | }.
i=0 3

= 3z s .
Proof. Let 770
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
771
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. a Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperK-Domination in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 772

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 777
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 778
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination. 779
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 780
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei }.

= |EN SHG |z |EN SHG | .
= {CEN T ER}.
= z |VN SHG |−1 .
Proof. Let 781
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
Figure 25. a Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperK-Domination in the Extreme Example (16.9)
782
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 783
a new way to redefine as 784

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 788
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 789
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 790
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 791
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination. 792
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 793
Then 794

= {EiEi ∈Pi ||Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | }.
= (|{Pi | |Pi | = min |Pj |}|)z |Pi |=maxPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
Pj ∈EN SHG

= {ViVi ∈Pi ||Pi |=minPj ∈VN SHG |Pj | }.
Pj ∈EN SHG
Proof. Let 795
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
796
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 797

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperK-Domination. Thus 801
the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 802
SuperHyperK-Domination could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus 803
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 804
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperK-Domination taken from a connected Extreme 805
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 806
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 807
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination in the Example (16.11)
The latter is straightforward. 808
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 809
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 810
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 811
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 812
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 813
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination. 814
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 815
ESHM : (V, E). Then 816

= {EiEi ∈Pi ||Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | }.
Pj ∈EN SHG

= {ViVi ∈Pi ||Pi |=minPj ∈VN SHG |Pj | }.
Pj ∈EN SHG
Proof. Let 817
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
818
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 820

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperK-Domination. Thus 823
the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 824
SuperHyperK-Domination could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus 825
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 826
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 827
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 828
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 829
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 830
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 831
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 832
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 833
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 834
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 835
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination. 836
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 837
Then, 838
|E ∗ |
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei∗ }i=1N SHG .
∗
= z |EN SHG |−1 .
= {CEN T ER}.
∗
= z |VN SHG |−1 .
Figure 27. a Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperK-Domination in the Example (16.13)
Proof. Let 839
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
840
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 842

latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperK-Domination. Thus the 845
notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperK-Domination 846
could be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperK-Domination proposes some 847
longest SuperHyperK-Domination excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 848
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 850
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 851
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 852
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 853
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination. 854
Figure 28. a Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination in the Extreme Example (16.15)
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 855
Results But As The Initial Motivation 856
For the SuperHyperK-Domination, Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination, and the 857
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination, some general results are introduced. 858
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination is “redefined” on 859
the positions of the alphabets. 860
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination. Then 861
Extreme SuperHyperK − Domination =

{theSuperHyperK − Dominationof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperK − Domination
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperK−Domination. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 862
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 863
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 864
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 865
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination and 866
SuperHyperK-Domination coincide. 867
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a Extreme 869
SuperHyperK-Domination if and only if it’s a SuperHyperK-Domination. 870
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 872
SuperHyperK-Domination if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperK-Domination. 873
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 874
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination is its 875
SuperHyperK-Domination and reversely. 876
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperK-Domination, 877
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 878
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination is 879
its SuperHyperK-Domination and reversely. 880
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 881
SuperHyperK-Domination isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperK-Domination 882
isn’t well-defined. 883
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 884
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination isn’t well-defined if and only if its 885
SuperHyperK-Domination isn’t well-defined. 886
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 888
Then its Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination isn’t well-defined if and only if its 889
SuperHyperK-Domination isn’t well-defined. 890
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 891
SuperHyperK-Domination is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperK-Domination is 892
well-defined. 893
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 894
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination is well-defined if and only if its 895
SuperHyperK-Domination is well-defined. 896
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 898
Then its Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination is well-defined if and only if its 899
SuperHyperK-Domination is well-defined. 900
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 901
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 902
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 903
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 904
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 905
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 906
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 907
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 908
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 909
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 910
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 911
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 912
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 913
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 914
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 915
independent SuperHyperSet is 916
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 917
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 918
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 919
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 920
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 921
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 922
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperUniform 923
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperK-Domination/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 924
maximal 925
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 926
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 927
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 928
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 929
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 930
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 931
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 932
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 933
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 934
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 935
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 936
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 937
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 938
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 939
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 940
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 941
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperK-Domination/SuperHyperPath. Then the 943
number of 944
(i) : the SuperHyperK-Domination; 945
(ii) : the SuperHyperK-Domination; 946
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperK-Domination; 947
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination; 948
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination; 949
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination. 950
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 951
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 952
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 954
(i) : the dual SuperHyperK-Domination; 955
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperK-Domination; 956
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperK-Domination; 957
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination; 958
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination; 959
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination. 960
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 961
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 964
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 965
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 966
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 967
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 971
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 972
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 973
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 976
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 977
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 978
is a 979
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 983
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 984
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 985
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 988
number of 989
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 993
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 994
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 995
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 996
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 997
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 998
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1000
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1001
(iv) : SuperHyperK-Domination; 1005
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1006
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1007
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1008
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1009
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1010
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1011
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1012
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1016
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1018
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1019
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1020
setting of dual 1021
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1025
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1026
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1027
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1029
SuperHyperK-Domination/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1031
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1032
dual 1033
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1037
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1038
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1039
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1041
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1042
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1043
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1049
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1050
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1051
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1052
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1053
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1054
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such 1055
that 1056
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1057
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1058
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1059
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then 1060
(i) S is SuperHyperK-Domination set; 1061
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1062
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1063
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1064
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1065
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1066
connected. Then 1067
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1068
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1069
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1070
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1071
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1073
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1074
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1075
a dual SuperHyperK-Domination. 1076
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1077
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1078
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1080
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1081
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1082
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1083
dual SuperHyperK-Domination. 1084
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperK-Domination. Then 1085
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1086
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1088
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1089
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1090
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1091
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperK-Domination. Then 1093
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1094
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1096
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1097
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1098
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1100
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperK-Domination; 1101
(ii) Γ = 1; 1102
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1103
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperK-Domination. 1104
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1105
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1106
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1107
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1108
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1109
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1110
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1111
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1112
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1113
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1115
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1116
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1117
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1119
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1120
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1122

bnc ; 1123
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1124
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1126
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1127
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1128
SuperHyperK-Domination for N SHF; 1129
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1130
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1131
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1132
SuperHyperK-Domination for N SHF : (V, E). 1133
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1134
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1135
SuperHyperSet. Then 1136
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1137
SuperHyperK-Domination for N SHF; 1138
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1139

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1140
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1141
SuperHyperK-Domination for N SHF : (V, E). 1142
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1143
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1144
SuperHyperSet. Then 1145
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1146
SuperHyperK-Domination for N SHF : (V, E); 1147
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1148

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1149
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperK-Domination 1150
for N SHF : (V, E). 1151
following statements hold; 1153
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1154
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then S is an 1155
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1156
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1157
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then S is a dual 1158
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1159
following statements hold; 1161
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1162
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then S is an 1163
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperK-Domination; 1164
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1165
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then S is a dual 1166
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperK-Domination. 1167
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1168
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1169
hold; 1170
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1171
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1172
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1173
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1175
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1177
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1178
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1179
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1180
hold; 1181
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1182
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1184
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1186
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1188
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1189
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1191
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1192
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1193
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1195
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1197
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1200
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1202
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1203
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1204
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1206
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1208
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1209
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1211
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1213
SuperHyperK-Domination. Then following statements hold; 1214
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1215
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1217
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1219
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1222
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1224
SuperHyperK-Domination. Then following statements hold; 1225
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1226
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1228
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1230
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1233
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1234
Recognition 1235
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1236
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1237
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1238
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1239
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1240
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1241
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1242
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1243
long-term Extreme function. 1244
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1245
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1246
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1247
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1248
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1249
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1250
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1251
Figure 29. a Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperK-Domination
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1252
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1253
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1254
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Extreme 1255
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperK-Domination, SuperHyperStar, 1256
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1257
find either the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination or the Extreme 1258
SuperHyperK-Domination in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1259
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1260
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1261
SuperHyperModel 1262
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1263
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1264
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1265
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1266
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1267
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1268
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1269
the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination. 1270
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

SuperHyperK-Domination
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1271
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1272
SuperHyperModel 1273
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1274
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1275
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1276
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1277
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1278
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1279
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1280
is the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination. 1281
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1282
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1283
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1284
The SuperHyperK-Domination and the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination are defined 1285
on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1286
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1287
recognitions? 1288
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1289
SuperHyperK-Domination and the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination? 1290
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1291
compute them? 1292
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1293
SuperHyperK-Domination and the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination? 1294
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperK-Domination and the Extreme 1295
SuperHyperK-Domination do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1296
they’re based on SuperHyperK-Domination, are there else? 1297
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1298
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1299
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1300
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1301
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1302
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1303
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1304
highlighted. 1305
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1306
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1307
SuperHyperK-Domination. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 1308
the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 1309
the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 1310
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination, finds the convenient background to implement 1311
some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme 1312
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 1313
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 1314
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1315
SuperHyperK-Domination, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 1316
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1317
SuperHyperK-Domination and the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination. The 1318
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1319
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1320
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1321
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1322
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1323
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1324
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1325
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1326
formally called “ SuperHyperK-Domination” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1327
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1328
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperK-Domination
3. Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1329
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1330
12 ExtremeSuperHyperDuality But As The 1331
Forms 1333
Definition 12.1. (Different ExtremeTypes of ExtremeSuperHyperDuality). 1334
Assume an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an K-Dominationed pair 1335
S = (V, E). Consider an ExtremeSuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 1336
(i) Extremee-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1338
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1339
(ii) Extremere-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1340
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1341
(iii) Extremev-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such that 1343
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1344
(iv) Extremerv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1345
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1346
(v) ExtremeSuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperDuality, 1348
Extremere-SuperHyperDuality, Extremev-SuperHyperDuality, and 1349
Extremerv-SuperHyperDuality. 1350
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1351
S = (V, E). Consider an ExtremeSuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then 1353
E is called 1354
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperDuality, 1355
Extremerv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1357
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1361
(ii) a ExtremeSuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperDuality, 1362
Extremerv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a ExtremeSuperHyperGraph 1364
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extremecardinality of the 1365
ExtremeSuperHyperEdges of an ExtremeSuperHyperSet S of high 1366
Extremecardinality consecutive ExtremeSuperHyperEdges and 1367
ExtremeSuperHyperVertices such that they form the ExtremeSuperHyperDuality; 1368
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1369
Extremee-SuperHyperDuality, Extremere-SuperHyperDuality, 1370
Extremev-SuperHyperDuality, and Extremerv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) 1371
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1372
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1373
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1374
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1375
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1377
(iv) a ExtremeSuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1379
for an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1382
ExtremeSuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extremecoefficients defined as the 1383
Extremenumber of the maximum Extremecardinality of the 1384
and the Extremepower is corresponded to its Extremecoefficient; 1388
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of 1389
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1392
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1393
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1394
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1396
(vi) a ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of 1397
for an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 1400
Extremecardinality of the ExtremeSuperHyperVertices of an 1401
ExtremeSuperHyperSet S of high Extremecardinality consecutive 1402
ExtremeSuperHyperEdges and ExtremeSuperHyperVertices such that they form 1403
the ExtremeSuperHyperDuality; 1404
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1405
of Extremee-SuperHyperDuality, Extremere-SuperHyperDuality, 1406
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1410
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1411
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1413
(viii) a ExtremeSuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1415
ExtremeSuperHyperVertices of an ExtremeSuperHyperSet S of high 1421
and the Extremepower is corresponded to its Extremecoefficient. 1424
Example 12.3. Assume an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 1425
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E) in the mentioned ExtremeFigures in every 1426
Extremeitems. 1427
• On the Figure (1), the ExtremeSuperHyperNotion, namely, 1428
ExtremeSuperHyperDuality, is up. The ExtremeAlgorithm is Neutrosophicly 1429
a loop ExtremeSuperHyperEdge and E4 is an ExtremeSuperHyperEdge. Thus in 1431
the terms of ExtremeSuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1432
ExtremeSuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The ExtremeSuperHyperVertex, V3 is 1433
Extremeisolated means that there’s no ExtremeSuperHyperEdge has it as an 1434
Extremeendpoint. Thus the ExtremeSuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every 1435
given ExtremeSuperHyperDuality. 1436
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty ExtremeSuperHyperEdges but E4 1439
is an ExtremeSuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1440
ExtremeSuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one ExtremeSuperHyperEdge, namely, 1441
E4 . The ExtremeSuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extremeisolated means that there’s no 1442
ExtremeSuperHyperEdge has it as an Extremeendpoint. Thus the 1443
ExtremeSuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 1444
ExtremeSuperHyperDuality. 1445


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

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .
• On the Figure (??), the ExtremeSuperHyperNotion, namely, 1452

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial 6z 8 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality = {V3i+17i=0 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality = {E15 , E16 , E17 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality = {V3 , V13 , V8 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality = {V3i+13i=0 , V15 }.

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality = {V1 , Vii610=5,7,8 }.
i=4

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

(2 × 2 × 2)z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality = {E3i+1i=03 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality = {V2i+1i=05 }.



C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
The previous Extremeapproach apply on the upcoming Extremeresults on 1506
ExtremeSuperHyperClasses. 1507
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected ExtremeSuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1508
Then 1509
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality =
|EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality
= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 3

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1510
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality .
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1511

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1514
Example 12.5. In the Figure (23), the connected ExtremeSuperHyperPath 1516
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The ExtremeSuperHyperSet, in the 1517
ExtremeSuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1518
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected ExtremeSuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1519
Then 1520
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality =
= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperDuality

.
Proof. Let 1521
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1522

Example 12.7. In the Figure (24), the connected ExtremeSuperHyperCycle 1527
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained ExtremeSuperHyperSet, in 1528
the ExtremeSuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1529
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected ExtremeSuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1530
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|ExtremeCardinality |z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1531
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .
be a longest path taken a connected ExtremeSuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s a 1532
new way to redefine as 1533

Example 12.9. In the Figure (25), the connected ExtremeSuperHyperStar 1537
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained ExtremeSuperHyperSet, by 1538
the Algorithm in previous Extremeresult, of the ExtremeSuperHyperVertices of the 1539
connected ExtremeSuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the ExtremeSuperHyperModel 1540
(25), is the ExtremeSuperHyperDuality. 1541
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected ExtremeSuperHyperBipartite 1542
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1543
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperDuality
= {Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
X
=( (min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |)choose|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |)
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
= {ViEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 1544
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Emini |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) | , Vmin i |Pi
ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) |+1
is a longest path taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1545

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperDuality. Thus the notion of quasi 1549
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1550
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1551
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1552
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperBipartite 1553
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1554
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1555
solution 1556
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Example 12.11. In the ExtremeFigure (26), the connected 1558
ExtremeSuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extremehighlighted and 1559
Extremefeatured. The obtained ExtremeSuperHyperSet, by the ExtremeAlgorithm in 1560
previous Extremeresult, of the ExtremeSuperHyperVertices of the connected 1561
ExtremeSuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the ExtremeSuperHyperModel (26), is 1562
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1563
Proposition 12.12. Assume a connected ExtremeSuperHyperMultipartite 1564
= {Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 1566
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected 1567
ExtremeSuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1568

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1573
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest path taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperMultipartite 1575
solution 1578
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Example 12.13. In the Figure (27), the connected ExtremeSuperHyperMultipartite 1581
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extremefeatured. The obtained 1582
ExtremeSuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extremeresult, of the 1583
ExtremeSuperHyperVertices of the connected ExtremeSuperHyperMultipartite 1584
ESHM : (V, E), in the ExtremeSuperHyperModel (27), is the 1585
Proposition 12.14. Assume a connected ExtremeSuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1587
Then, 1588
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
ExtremeCardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1589
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |ExtremeCardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) ExtremeCardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperWheel 1590
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1591

∃!Ez∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
∗
, ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL ∈ Ez∗ ≡
∃!Ez∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
∗
, {ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL } ⊆ Ez∗ .
The unique embedded SuperHyperDuality proposes some longest SuperHyperDuality 1596
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1597
Example 12.15. In the ExtremeFigure (28), the connected ExtremeSuperHyperWheel 1598
N SHW : (V, E), is Extremehighlighted and featured. The obtained 1599
ExtremeSuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1600
ExtremeSuperHyperVertices of the connected ExtremeSuperHyperWheel 1601
ESHW : (V, E), in the ExtremeSuperHyperModel (28), is the 1602
13 ExtremeSuperHyperJoin But As The 1604
Forms 1606
Definition 13.1. (Different ExtremeTypes of ExtremeSuperHyperJoin). 1607
(i) Extremee-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1611
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 1612
(ii) Extremere-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1613
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1614
(iii) Extremev-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1616
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 1617
(iv) Extremerv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1618
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 1619
(v) ExtremeSuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperJoin, 1621
Extremere-SuperHyperJoin, Extremev-SuperHyperJoin, and 1622
Extremerv-SuperHyperJoin. 1623
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 1624
E is called 1627
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperJoin, 1628
Extremerv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1630
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 1634
(ii) a ExtremeSuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperJoin, 1635
Extremerv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a ExtremeSuperHyperGraph 1637
ExtremeSuperHyperVertices such that they form the ExtremeSuperHyperJoin; 1641
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1642
Extremee-SuperHyperJoin, Extremere-SuperHyperJoin, 1643
Extremev-SuperHyperJoin, and Extremerv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 1644
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1645
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 1650
coefficient; 1651
(iv) a ExtremeSuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1652
ExtremeSuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the ExtremeSuperHyperPolynomial 1655
contains the Extremecoefficients defined as the Extremenumber of the maximum 1656
Extremecardinality of the ExtremeSuperHyperEdges of an ExtremeSuperHyperSet 1657
S of high Extremecardinality consecutive ExtremeSuperHyperEdges and 1658
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperJoin, 1661
Extremerv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1663
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 1667
(vi) a ExtremeR-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperJoin, 1668
Extremerv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph 1670
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1675
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1678
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 1683
coefficient; 1684
(viii) a ExtremeSuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1685
ExtremeSuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the ExtremeSuperHyperPolynomial 1688
contains the Extremecoefficients defined as the Extremenumber of the maximum 1689
the ExtremeSuperHyperJoin; and the Extremepower is corresponded to its 1693
Extremecoefficient. 1694
Extremeitems. 1697
ExtremeSuperHyperJoin, is up. The ExtremeAlgorithm is Neutrosophicly 1699
given ExtremeSuperHyperJoin. 1706
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperJoin = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
ExtremeSuperHyperJoin. 1715


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

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E23 }.

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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



C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 1779
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperJoin =
= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperJoin

.
Proof. Let 1780
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 1784
ExtremeSuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 1788
Then 1790
= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .

.
Proof. Let 1791
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the ExtremeSuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 1799
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1801

(25), is the ExtremeSuperHyperJoin. 1811
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperJoin
= (PERFECT MATCHING).
{Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
If ∃Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | =
6 min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |.
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
where ∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) |
= min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 1814
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 1819
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 1820
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1821
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperBipartite 1823
solution 1826
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 1833
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 1836
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperMultipartite 1837
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1838

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 1841
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 1842
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1843
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 1848
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
ESHM : (V, E), in the ExtremeSuperHyperModel (27), is the ExtremeSuperHyperJoin. 1855
Then, 1857
= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .

.
Proof. Let 1858
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperWheel 1859

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 1863
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 1864
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 1865
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1866
ESHW : (V, E), in the ExtremeSuperHyperModel (28), is the ExtremeSuperHyperJoin. 1871
14 ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect But As The 1872
Forms 1874
Definition 14.1. (Different ExtremeTypes of ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect). 1875
(i) Extremee-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 1879
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1880
(ii) Extremere-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 1881
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1882
(iii) Extremev-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 1884
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1885
(iv) Extremerv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 1886
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 1887
(v) ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperPerfect, 1889
Extremere-SuperHyperPerfect, Extremev-SuperHyperPerfect, and 1890
Extremerv-SuperHyperPerfect. 1891
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 1892
E is called 1895
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperPerfect, 1896
Extremerv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1898
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 1902
(ii) a ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperPerfect, 1903
Extremerv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a ExtremeSuperHyperGraph 1905
ExtremeSuperHyperVertices such that they form the ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect; 1909
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1910
Extremee-SuperHyperPerfect, Extremere-SuperHyperPerfect, 1911
Extremev-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extremerv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) 1912
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1918
(iv) a ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1920
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of 1930
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1933
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1934
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1935
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 1937
(vi) a ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperPerfect, 1938
Extremerv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph 1940
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1945
of Extremee-SuperHyperPerfect, Extremere-SuperHyperPerfect, 1946
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1953
(viii) a ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1955
Extremeitems. 1967
ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect, is up. The ExtremeAlgorithm is Neutrosophicly 1969
given ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect. 1976
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect. 1985


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

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2049
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect =
= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect

.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2050
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2054
ExtremeSuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2058
Then 2060
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect =
= {Ei }i=1 3
.
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect

.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2061
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the ExtremeSuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2069
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2071

(25), is the ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect. 2081
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperPerfect
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 2084
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2089
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2090
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2091
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2092
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperBipartite 2093
solution 2096
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2103
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 2106
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperMultipartite 2107

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2111
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2112
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2113
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2118
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Then, 2128
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2129

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperWheel 2130

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2134
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2135
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2136
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2137
15 ExtremeSuperHyperTotal But As The 2144
Forms 2146
Definition 15.1. (Different ExtremeTypes of ExtremeSuperHyperTotal). 2147
(i) Extremee-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2151
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2152
(ii) Extremere-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2153
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2154
(iii) Extremev-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2156
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2157
(iv) Extremerv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2158
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2159
(v) ExtremeSuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperTotal, 2161
Extremere-SuperHyperTotal, Extremev-SuperHyperTotal, and 2162
Extremerv-SuperHyperTotal. 2163
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2164
E is called 2167
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperTotal, 2168
Extremerv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2170
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2174
(ii) a ExtremeSuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperTotal, 2175
Extremerv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a ExtremeSuperHyperGraph 2177
ExtremeSuperHyperVertices such that they form the ExtremeSuperHyperTotal; 2181
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2182
Extremee-SuperHyperTotal, Extremere-SuperHyperTotal, 2183
Extremev-SuperHyperTotal, and Extremerv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for 2184
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2185
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2190
coefficient; 2191
(iv) a ExtremeSuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2192
an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 2195
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperTotal, 2202
Extremerv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2204
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2208
(vi) a ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extremee-SuperHyperTotal, 2209
Extremerv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph 2211
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2216
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2219
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2224
coefficient; 2225
(viii) a ExtremeSuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2226
an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 2229
Extremeitems. 2238
ExtremeSuperHyperTotal, is up. The ExtremeAlgorithm is Neutrosophicly 2240
given ExtremeSuperHyperTotal. 2247
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
ExtremeSuperHyperTotal. 2256


C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi- = {E4 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal = {Ei+19i=0 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {E12 , E13 , E14 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V12 , V13 , V14 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 10z 10 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E5 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E6 , E7 , E8 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , Vii68=4,5,6 }.
i=1




4 × 3z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
4 × 3z 4 .

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

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 11z 10 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+2i=011 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 11z 10 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= |(|V | − 1)z 2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal = {V1 , V2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2320
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal =
|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) ExtremeCardinality .
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) ExtremeCardinality .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −2
Proof. Let 2321
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2325
ExtremeSuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2329
Then 2331
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal =
|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) ExtremeCardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) ExtremeCardinality .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −2
Proof. Let 2332
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −1

the ExtremeSuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2340
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|ExtremeCardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|ExtremeCardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|ExtremeCardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2342
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the ExtremeSuperHyperTotal. 2352
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal
= {Ea ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
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}.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 2355
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2360
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2361
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperBipartite 2364
solution 2367
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2374
i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 2377
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperMultipartite 2378

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2382
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2383
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2389
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Then, 2399
∗
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|ExtremeCardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|ExtremeCardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|ExtremeCardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2400
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperWheel 2401

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2405
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2406
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2407
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2408
16 ExtremeSuperHyperConnected But As The 2415
Forms 2417
Definition 16.1. (Different ExtremeTypes of ExtremeSuperHyperConnected). 2418
(i) Extremee-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2422
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2423
(ii) Extremere-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2424
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2425
(iii) Extremev-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2427
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2428
(iv) Extremerv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2429
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2430
(v) ExtremeSuperHyperConnected if it’s either of 2432
Extremee-SuperHyperConnected, Extremere-SuperHyperConnected, 2433
Extremev-SuperHyperConnected, and Extremerv-SuperHyperConnected. 2434
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2435
E is called 2438
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of 2439
Extremev-SuperHyperConnected, and Extremerv-SuperHyperConnected and 2441
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2442
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2443
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2444
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2446
(ii) a ExtremeSuperHyperConnected if it’s either of 2447
C(N SHG) for a ExtremeSuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2450
Extremecardinality of the ExtremeSuperHyperEdges of an 2451
the ExtremeSuperHyperConnected; 2454
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2455
of Extremee-SuperHyperConnected, Extremere-SuperHyperConnected, 2456
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2458
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2463
(iv) a ExtremeSuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2465
C(N SHG) for an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 2468
ExtremeSuperHyperVertices such that they form the 2473
ExtremeSuperHyperConnected; and the Extremepower is corresponded to its 2474
Extremecoefficient; 2475
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of 2476
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2479
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2480
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 2481
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 2482
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2483
(vi) a ExtremeR-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of 2484
C(N SHG) for an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2487
the ExtremeSuperHyperConnected; 2491
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2492
either of Extremee-SuperHyperConnected, Extremere-SuperHyperConnected, 2493
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2495
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2500
(viii) a ExtremeSuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2502
C(N SHG) for an ExtremeSuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 2505
ExtremeSuperHyperVertices such that they form the 2510
ExtremeSuperHyperConnected; and the Extremepower is corresponded to its 2511
Extremecoefficient. 2512
Extremeitems. 2515
ExtremeSuperHyperConnected, is up. The ExtremeAlgorithm is Neutrosophicly 2517
given ExtremeSuperHyperConnected. 2524
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
ExtremeSuperHyperConnected. 2533


C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnected = {E1 , E2 , E4 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 15z 2 .

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Ei+19i=0 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E12 , E13 , E14 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V12 , V13 , V14 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial 10z 10 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+119
i=11
, V22 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E5 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E1 , E6 , E7 , E8 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 4 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E1 , E2 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 5z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , Vii68=4,5,6 }.
i=1
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 5 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E3 , E9 , E6 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V2 , V3 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E2 , E3 , E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
4 × 3z 3 .

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 , V2 , V6 , V17 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 3z 4 .

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

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 11z 10 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+2i=011 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 10z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V1 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {E3 , E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2597
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperConnected =
|EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
=z .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality z ESHG:(V,E) ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 2598
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2602
ExtremeSuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2606
Then 2608
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperConnected =
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality − 1)
z .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality z ESHG:(V,E) ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 2609
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality −1 .

the ExtremeSuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2617
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2619
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the ExtremeSuperHyperConnected. 2629
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperConnected
i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)ExtremeV-SuperHyperConnected
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)ExtremeV-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 2632
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2637
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2638
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected 2641
ExtremeSuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and 2642
only minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 2643
solution 2644
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2651
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi-SuperHyperConnected
i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)ExtremeV-SuperHyperConnected
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)ExtremeV-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
ExtremeCardinality
Proof. Let 2654
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected 2655
ExtremeSuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2656

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2659
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2660
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2666
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Then, 2676
∗
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |ExtremeCardinality |z.
C(N SHG)ExtremeV-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeV-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2677
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected ExtremeSuperHyperWheel 2678

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2682
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2683
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2684
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2685
17 Background 2693
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2694
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them date back on February 19, 2695
2023. 2696
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 2697
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 2698
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 2699
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 2700
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, K-Domination, 2701
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 2702
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 2703
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 2704
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 2705
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 2706
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 2707
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 2708
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 2709
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 2710
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2711
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 2712
majority of notions. 2713
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 2714
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 2715
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 2716
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 2717
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 2718
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 2719
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 2720
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 2721
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 2722
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2723
results based on initial background. 2724
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and 2725
Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in 2726
Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 2727
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2728
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 2729
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 2730
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 2731
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 2732
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 2733
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 2734
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 2735
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2736
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees and 2737
Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 2738
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [52] by Henry Garrett 2739
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2740
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 2741
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 2742
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 2743
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 2744
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 2745
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2746
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2747
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 2748
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)K-Domination alongside (Dual)Dominating in 2749
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 2750
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 2751
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 2752
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 2753
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 2754
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 2755
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 2756
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 2757
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 2758
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 2759
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 2760
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 2761
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 2762
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 2763
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 2764
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 2765
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 2766
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 2767
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 2768
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 2769
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 2770
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 2771
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 2773
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 2774
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 2775
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 2776
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 2777
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 2778
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 2779
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 2780
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 2781
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 2782
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 2783
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 2784
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 2785
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 2786
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 2787
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 2788
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 2789
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 2790
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 2791
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 2792
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2793
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 2794
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 2795
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 2796
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 2797
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 2798
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 2799
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 2800
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [66] by Henry 2801
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 2802
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 2803
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [67] by Henry 2804
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 2805
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 2806
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [68] by Henry 2807
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 2808
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 2809
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [69] by Henry Garrett 2810
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 2811
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 2812
Ref. [72] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 2813
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 2814
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 2815
Ref. [73] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2816
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 2817
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [76] by 2818
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 2819
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 2820
Ref. [79] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 2821
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 2822
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [80] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 2823
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 2824
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 2826
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 2827
in Ref. [82] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 2828
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [83] by Henry 2829
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 2830
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 2831
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [84] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 2832
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 2833
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [95] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 2834
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 2835
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 2836
Ref. [96] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 2837
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 2838
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed 2839
as book in Ref. [97] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and 2840
has more than 3230 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and 2841
published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview 2842
Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions 2843
and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 2844
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 2845
proposed as book in Ref. [98] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 2846
Scholar and has more than 4117 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 2847
and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell 2848
Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different 2849
types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of 2850
duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This 2851
research book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 2852
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 2853
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 2854
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 2855
framework of Extreme SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating 2856
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [5–96]. Two popular scientific 2857
research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 3230 and 4117 respectively, on 2858
neutrosophic science is on [97, 98]. 2859
– 2860
References 2861
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2862
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 2863
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 2864
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 2865
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 2866
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 2867
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 2868
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 2869
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 2870
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 2871
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 2872
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 2873
4. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 2874
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 2875
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 2876
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 2877
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 2878
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 2879
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 2880
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)K-Domination alongside (Dual)Dominating in 2881
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 2882
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 2883
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 2884
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 2885
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 2886
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 2887
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 2888
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 2889
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 2890
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 2891
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 2892
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 2893
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 2894
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 2895
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 2896
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2897
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 2898
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 2899
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2900
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 2901
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 2902
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 2903
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 2904
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 2905
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 2906
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 2907
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 2908
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 2909
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2910
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 2911
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 2912
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 2913
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 2914
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 2915
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 2916
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 2917
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 2918
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 2919
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 2920
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2921
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 2922
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 2923
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 2924
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 2925
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 2926
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 2927
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 2929
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 2930
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2931
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 2932
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 2933
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 2934
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 2936
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 2940
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 2941
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2942
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 2943
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 2944
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 2945
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 2946
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2947
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 2948
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2949
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 2950
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 2951
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 2952
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 2953
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 2954
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 2955
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 2956
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 2957
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 2958
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 2959
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 2960
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 2961
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13397.09446). 2962
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 2963
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 2964
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 2965
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 2966
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 2967
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 2970
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11758.69441). 2971
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 2972
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 2973
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 2976
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 2977
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 2978
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 2979
32. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 2981
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 2982
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 2985
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 2986
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 2988
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 2990
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 2991
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 2993
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 2994
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 2996
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 2997
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 2998
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 2999
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper Correction On 3000
Super Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3001
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3002
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3003
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3004
10.13140/RG.2.2.33459.30243). 3005
40. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3006
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3007
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3008
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3009
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3010
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3011
42. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3012
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3013
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3014
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3015
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3018
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3019
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3022
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3023
45. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3024
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3026
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3027
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3030
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3031
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3034
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3035
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3036
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3037
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3038
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3039
49. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3040
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3041
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3042
50. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3043
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3044
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3045
51. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3046
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3047
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3048
52. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3049
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3050
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3051
(2023) 35-47. 3052
53. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3053
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3054
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3055
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3056
54. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3057
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3058
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3059
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3060
55. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3061
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3062
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3063
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3064
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3065
56. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3066
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3067
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3068
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3069
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3070
57. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3071
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3072
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3073
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3074
58. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3075
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3076
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3077
59. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3078
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3079
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3081
60. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3082
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3083
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3084
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3085
61. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3086
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3087
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3088
62. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3089
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3090
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3091
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3092
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3093
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3094
63. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3095
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3096
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3097
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3098
64. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3099
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3100
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3101
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3102
65. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3103
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3104
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3105
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3106
66. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3107
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3108
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3109
67. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3110
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3111
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3112
68. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3114
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3116
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3117
69. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3118
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3119
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3120
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3121
70. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3122
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3124
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3125
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3127
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3128
72. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3129
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3130
73. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3132
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3133
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3134
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3139
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3143
76. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3144
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3145
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3146
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3147
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3150
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3152
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3153
79. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3154
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3155
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3158
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3159
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3161
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3162
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3165
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3166
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3168
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3169
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3172
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3173
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3175
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3176
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3178
87. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3180
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3183
88. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3185
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3188
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3195
91. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3196
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3197
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3198
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3199
92. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3200
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3201
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3202
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3203
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3206
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3207
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3210
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3211
95. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3212
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3213
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3214
96. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3215
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3216
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3217
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3218
97. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3219
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3220
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3221
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3222
98. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3223
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3224
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3225
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3226
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Harmony by Hyper K-Function of SuperHyperK-Domination in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super Harmony by Hyper K-Function of SuperHyperK-Domination in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of SuperHyperK-

Preprint · February 2023

336 PUBLICATIONS 4,424 CITATIONS

On Fuzzy Logic View project

On Combinatorics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 2

SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperK-Domination). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 10

K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11

V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12

|E 0 | = k, ∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃Vc ∈ V, Vc ∈ Ea , Eb ; Neutrosophic 14

|E 0 | = k, ∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃Vc ∈ V, Vc ∈ Ea , Eb ; and 16

|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17

|V 0 | = k, ∀Va ∈ VN SHG \ V 0 , ∃Vb ∈ V 0 , ∃Ec ∈ E, Va , Vb ∈ Vc ; Neutrosophic 19

|V 0 | = k, ∀Va ∈ VN SHG \ V 0 , ∃Vb ∈ V 0 , ∃Ec ∈ E, Va , Vb ∈ Vc ; and 21

|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22

SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 23

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, 24

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination. ((Neutrosophic) 25

SuperHyperK-Domination). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 26

K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 27

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s 28

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 29

re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and 30

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 31

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 32

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 33

consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 34

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; a 35

Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 36

e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 37

v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and 38

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 39

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 40

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 41

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 42

Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination 43

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 44

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, 45

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 46

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

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

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

Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 50

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; and 51

the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 52

SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 53

e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 54

v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and 55

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 56

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 57

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 58

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 59

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 60

that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Neutrosophic 61

power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 62

V-SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 63

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, 64