New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper K-Actions On Super Patterns

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368781100
New Ideas In Cancer's Recognition And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super Patterns
Preprint · February 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
335 PUBLICATIONS 4,398 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
On Combinatorics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 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 In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper 3
k-Actions On Super Patterns 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-Domination 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
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ V, such that V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ Ea , Eb ; 14
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination if 15
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ V, such that V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ Ea , Eb ; 16
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperK-Domination if ∀Va ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Vb ∈ E 0 , ∃E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ∈ E, such 18
that Va , Vb ∈ E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ; Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination if 19
∀Va ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Vb ∈ E 0 , ∃E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ∈ E, such that Va , Vb ∈ E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ; 20
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 21
SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 22
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, 23
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination. ((Neutrosophic) 24
SuperHyperK-Domination). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 25
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 26
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s 27
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 28
re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and 29
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 30
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 31
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 32
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 33
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; a 34
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 35
e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 36
v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and 37
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 38
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 39
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 41
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination 42
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 43
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 45
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 46
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 47
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 48
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 49
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; and 50
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 51
SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 52
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 55
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 56
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 57
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 58
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 59
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Neutrosophic 60
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 61
V-SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 62
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 65
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 66
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 67
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; a 68
Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 69
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 73
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; an Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination 76
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 77
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 80
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 81
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 82
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; and 84
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 85
SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 86
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 89
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 91
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 92
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 93
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; 94
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this 95
scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 96
SuperHyperK-Domination and Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination. Two different 97
types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and 98
the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 99
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 100
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 101
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 102
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 103
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 104
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 105
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 106
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 107
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 108
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 109
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 110
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 111
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 112
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 113
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 114
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 115
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 116
δ−SuperHyperK-Domination is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 117
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 118
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 119
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 120
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 121
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperK-Domination is a 122
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 123
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 124
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 125
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 126
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 127
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 128
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 129
version of a SuperHyperK-Domination . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 130
make a SuperHyperK-Domination more understandable. For the sake of having 131
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 132
“SuperHyperK-Domination ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 133
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 134
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 135
SuperHyperK-Domination . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if 136
the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 137
HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 138
with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 139
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 140
“The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 141
HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 142
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 143
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 144
based on a SuperHyperK-Domination . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 145
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 146
have all SuperHyperK-Domination until the SuperHyperK-Domination, then it’s 147
officially called a “SuperHyperK-Domination” but otherwise, it isn’t a 148
SuperHyperK-Domination . There are some instances about the clarifications for the 149
main definition titled a “SuperHyperK-Domination ”. These two examples get more 150
scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 151
SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperK-Domination . For the sake of having a 152
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 153
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination” and a “Neutrosophic 154
SuperHyperK-Domination ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 155
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 156
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 157
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 158
Table holds. And a SuperHyperK-Domination are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 159
SuperHyperK-Domination” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 160
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 161
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination more 162
understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 164
SuperHyperK-Domination, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 165
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 166
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination”, “Neutrosophic 167
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 168
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 169
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination” where it’s 170
the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperK-Domination 171
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 172
SuperHyperK-Domination .] SuperHyperK-Domination . A graph is a 173
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 174
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 175
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 176
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 177
SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 178
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 179
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 180
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 181
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 182
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 183
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 184
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 185
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 186
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 187
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 188
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 189
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 190
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 191
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 192
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 193
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 194
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 195
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 196
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 197
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 198
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 199
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 200
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 201
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 202
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 203
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 204
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 205
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 206
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperK-Domination, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 207
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest 208
SuperHyperK-Domination or the strongest SuperHyperK-Domination in those 209
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperK-Domination, called 210
SuperHyperK-Domination, and the strongest SuperHyperK-Domination, called 211
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, some general results are introduced. Beyond 212
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 213
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 214
any style of a SuperHyperK-Domination. There isn’t any formation of any 215
SuperHyperK-Domination but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 216
SuperHyperK-Domination. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 217
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination theory, SuperHyperGraphs, 218
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 219
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperK-Domination, Cancer’s 220
Neutrosophic Recognition 221
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 222
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 223
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 224
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 225
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 226
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 227
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 228
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 229
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 230
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 231
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 232
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 233
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 234
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 235
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 236
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 237
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 238
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 239
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 240
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 241
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 242
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 243
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 244
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 245
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 246
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 247
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 248
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 249
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 250
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 251
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 252
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 253
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 254
formally called “ SuperHyperK-Domination” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 255
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 256
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 257
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 258
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 259
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 260
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 261
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 262
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 263
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 264
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 265
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 266
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperK-Domination, SuperHyperStar, 267
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 268
either the optimal SuperHyperK-Domination or the Neutrosophic 269
SuperHyperK-Domination in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general 270
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic 271
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 272
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 273
SuperHyperK-Domination. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperK-Domination 274
but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperK-Domination. It, literarily, 275
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 284
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 285
SuperHyperK-Domination” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination” on 286
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 287
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 288
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 289
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 290
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 291
point of this research, “Cancer’s 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 Neutrosophic 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
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, are figured out in sections “ 300
SuperHyperK-Domination” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination”. In the 301
sense of tackling on getting results and in K-Domination to make sense about 302
continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 303
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 304
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 305
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going 306
back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 307
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 308
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 309
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 310
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 311
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 312
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 313
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperK-Domination”, 314
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 315
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 316
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 317
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 318
presented in section, “ SuperHyperK-Domination”. The keyword of this research debut 319
in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections 320
“Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and 321
“Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. 322
In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s 323
done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” 324
to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the 325
limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense 326
and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and 327
Closing Remarks”. 328
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 329
Research On the Redeemed Ways 330
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 331
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [96],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [96],Definition 332
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [96],Definition 2.5,p.2), 333
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [96],Definition 334
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [96], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 335
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [96],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 336
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [96],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 337
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 338
(Ref. [96],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 339
to Ref. [96]. 340
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 341
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 342
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [96],Definition 2.1,p.1). 343
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 344
+
]− 0, 1 [. 345
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [96],Definition 2.2,p.2). 346
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 347
2.5,p.2). 348
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 349
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E), where 350
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 351
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 352
1, 2, . . . , n); 353
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 354
V; 355
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 356
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 357
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 358
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 359
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 360
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 361
(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 . 362
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 363
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 364
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 365
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 366
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 367
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 368
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 369
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 370
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 371
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 372
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 373
(Ref. [96],Definition 2.7,p.3). 374
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an K-Dominationed pair 375
S = (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 376
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 377
could be characterized as follow-up items. 378
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 379
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 380
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 381
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 382
HyperEdge; 383
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 384
SuperEdge; 385
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 386
SuperHyperEdge. 387
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 388
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 389
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [96], Definition 2.7, p.3). 390
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 391
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 392
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 393
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 394
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 395
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 396
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)). 397
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 398
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E), where 399
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 400
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 401
1, 2, . . . , n); 402
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 403
V; 404
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 405
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 406
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 407
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 408
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 409
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 410
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 411
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 412
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 413
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 414
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 415
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 416
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 417
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 418
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 419
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 420
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 421
S = (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic 424
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 425
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 427
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 428
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 429
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 430
HyperEdge; 431
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 432
SuperEdge; 433
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 434
SuperHyperEdge. 435
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 436
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 437
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 438
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 439
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 440
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 441
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 442
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 443
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 444
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 445
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 446
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 447
given SuperHyperEdges; 448
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 449
SuperHyperEdges; 450
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 451
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 452
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 453
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 454
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 455
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 456
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 457
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 458
common SuperVertex. 459
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 460
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 461
of following conditions hold: 462
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 463
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 464
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 465
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 466
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 467
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 468
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 469
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 470
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 471
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 472
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 473
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; 475
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 476
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 477
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 478
SuperHyperPath . 479
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 480
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 482
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 483
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 484
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 485
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 486
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 487
(NSHE)). (Ref. [96],Definition 5.4,p.7). 488
S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. 490
Then E is called 491
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 492
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 493
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 494
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 495
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 496
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 498
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 499
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 501
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 502
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 503
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 504
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 505
SuperHyperK-Domination). 506
S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 508
E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 509
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination if 510
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ V, such that 511
V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ Ea , Eb ; 512
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination if 513
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ V, such that 514
V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ Ea , Eb ; and 515
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 516
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination if 517
∀Va ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Vb ∈ E 0 , ∃E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ∈ E, such that 518
Va , Vb ∈ E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ; 519
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination if 520
∀Va ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Vb ∈ E 0 , ∃E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ∈ E, such that 521
Va , Vb ∈ E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ; and 522
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 523
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 524
e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, 525
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and Neutrosophic 526
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination. 527
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperK-Domination). 528
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 532
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 535
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 536
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 537
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 538
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; 539
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 540
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 543
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 544
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 545
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 546
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 547
SuperHyperK-Domination; 548
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 549
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 553
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 554
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 555
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 556
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 557
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 558
Extreme coefficient; 559
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if 560
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 561
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 563
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 564
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 565
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 566
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 567
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 568
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Neutrosophic 569
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 570
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 571
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 574
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 575
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 576
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 577
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; 578
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 579
rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 582
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 583
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 584
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 588
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 594
Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 597
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if 599
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 600
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 602
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 605
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Neutrosophic 608
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 609
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperK-Domination). 610
S = (V, E). Then 612
(i) an δ−SuperHyperK-Domination is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 613
SuperHyperK-Domination such that either of the following expressions hold for 614
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 615
|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 616
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 617
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperK-Domination is a Neutrosophic kind of 618
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination such that either of the following 619
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 620
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 621
|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. 622
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 623
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 624
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, there’s a need to 625
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 626
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 627
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 628
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 629
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if 630
the Table (1) holds. 631
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 632
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 633
understandable. 634
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 635
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic 636
SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , 637
SuperHyperK-Domination, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 638
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic 639
SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic 640
SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic 641
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table 642
(2) holds. 643
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 644
SuperHyperK-Domination. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 645
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination more Neutrosophicly understandable. 646
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, there’s a need to 647
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination”. The 648
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 649
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 650
assign to the values. 651
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperK-Domination. It’s redefined a 652
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if the Table (3) holds. 653

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

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination But As 654
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 655
Forms 656
Example 4.1. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 657
K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every 658
Neutrosophic items. 659
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 660
SuperHyperK-Domination, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 661
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 662
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 663
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 664
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 665
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 666
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 667
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 668
SuperHyperK-Domination. 669
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei }i6=2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z.
E4 ∼ E2 → 2z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {Vi }i6=1,2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z 2 .
V4 ∼ V2 , V1 → 3z 2 .
670
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 673
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 674

SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 675
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 676
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 677
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 678
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei }4i=1 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = z 0 .
[Two SuperHyperVertices are dominated by all non-isolated elements inside.]
680
straightforward. 683
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei }4i=1 .

684


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

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {V3 , O}
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial
= z6.
688

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

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {V5 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = z 14 .
692
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination

= {E3i+1 , E3j+23 }3i,j=0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 3z 4 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination
= {V3i+1 , V3j+11 }3i,j=0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Quasi-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 3z 3 .
696

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination =

{E15 , E16 , E17 }.
= 6 × 5 × 3z 7 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination =
{V12 , V6 , V8 }.
= 5 × 5 × 4z 4 .
700

{E15 , E16 , E17 }.
= 6 × 5 × 3z.
{V12 , V6 , V8 }.
= 5 × 5 × 4z 6 .
704




= {E3i+1 , E3j+23 }3i,j=0 .
= 3 × 3z 4 .
= {V3i+1 , V3j+11 }3i,j=0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Quasi-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 3z 11 .
708

{E5 }.
= z6.
{V12 , V6 , V8 }.
= 5 × 5 × 4z 6 .
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
712

{E1 , E3 }.
= z6.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {V1 , V6 }.
= 3 × 3z 3 .
716

= {Vi }i6=4,6,9,10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial =
= 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2z 5 .
720




{E1 , E3 }.
= z6.
= 3 × 3z 3 .
724

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperK-Domination = {V1 }.
728


C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination = {E1 , E4 }.

732

736

= {V2 , V7 , V17 , V27 }.
= 8 × 5 × 2z 14 .
740




= {V2 , V7 , V17 , V27 }.
= 8 × 5 × 2z 14 .
744

= {E3i+1 i=03 }.
= 3z 2 .
= {V3i+1 i=03 }.
= 3z 9 .
748


= {E6 }.
= 10z 10 .
= {V1 }.
= z |VN SHG |−1 .
752

= {E2 }.
= 2z.
= {V1 }.
= 10z 10 .
756




= {E2 , E4 }.
= 4z 2 .
= {V3 , V6 }.
= 5z 16 .
760
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 761
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 762
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 763
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 764
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 765
Then 766

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

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

= 3z s .
Proof. Let 767
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
768
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 769
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 770
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 771
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperK-Domination. The 772
latter is straightforward. 773
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 774
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 775
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperK-Domination. 776
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 777
Then 778

|EN SHG |
= {E3i+1 i=0 3 }.
= 3z 2 .
EXT ERN AL
= {V3i+1 |EN SHG | }.
i=0 3

= 3z s .
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperK-Domination in the Example (16.5)
Proof. Let 779
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
780
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 781
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 782

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 786
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 787
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 788
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 790
Then 791
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei }.

= |EN SHG |z |EN SHG | .
= {CEN T ER}.
= z |VN SHG |−1 .
Proof. Let 792
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
793
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 794
There’s a new way to redefine as 795

Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 799
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 800
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 801
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 802
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 803
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 805
ESHB : (V, E). Then 806

= {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 807
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
808
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 809
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 810

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperK-Domination. Thus 813
the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 814
SuperHyperK-Domination could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus 815
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 816
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperK-Domination taken from a connected Neutrosophic 817
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 818
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 819
solution 820
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 821
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 822
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 823
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 824
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 825
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 826
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination. 827
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 828
ESHM : (V, E). Then 829

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

= {ViVi ∈Pi ||Pi |=minPj ∈VN SHG |Pj | }.
Pj ∈EN SHG
Proof. Let 830
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
831
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 833

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperK-Domination. Thus 836
the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 837
SuperHyperK-Domination could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus 838
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 839
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 840
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 841
solution 843
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 845
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 846
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 847
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 848
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 849
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 850
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination. 851
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 852
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 853
|E ∗ |
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination = {Ei∗ }i=1N SHG .
∗
= z |EN SHG |−1 .
= {CEN T ER}.
∗
= z |VN SHG |−1 .
Proof. Let 854
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination in the Example (16.13)
855
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 857

latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperK-Domination. Thus the 860
notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperK-Domination 861
could be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperK-Domination proposes some 862
longest SuperHyperK-Domination excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 863
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 866
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 867
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 868
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 869
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 871
Results But As The Initial Motivation 872
For the SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, and the 873
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, some general results are introduced. 874
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination is “redefined” 875
on the positions of the alphabets. 876
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination. Then 877
N eutrosophic SuperHyperK − Domination =

{theSuperHyperK − Dominationof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperK − Domination
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperK−Domination. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 878
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 879
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 880
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 881
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination and 882
SuperHyperK-Domination coincide. 883
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 885
Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if and only if it’s a SuperHyperK-Domination. 886
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 888
SuperHyperK-Domination if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperK-Domination. 889
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 890
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination is 891
its SuperHyperK-Domination and reversely. 892
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperK-Domination, 893
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 894
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 895
SuperHyperK-Domination is its SuperHyperK-Domination and reversely. 896
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 897
SuperHyperK-Domination isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperK-Domination 898
isn’t well-defined. 899
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 900
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination isn’t well-defined if and only if its 901
SuperHyperK-Domination isn’t well-defined. 902
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 904
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination isn’t well-defined if and only if its 905
SuperHyperK-Domination isn’t well-defined. 906
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 907
SuperHyperK-Domination is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperK-Domination is 908
well-defined. 909
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 910
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination is well-defined if and only if its 911
SuperHyperK-Domination is well-defined. 912
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 914
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination is well-defined if and only if its 915
SuperHyperK-Domination is well-defined. 916
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 917
is 918
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 919
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 920
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 921
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 922
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 923
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 924
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 925
∅ is 926
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 927
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 928
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 929
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 930
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 931
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 932
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 933
independent SuperHyperSet is 934
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 935
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 936
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 937
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 938
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 939
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 940
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 941
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperK-Domination/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 942
maximal 943
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 944
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 945
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 946
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 947
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 948
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 949
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 950
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 951
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 952
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 953
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 954
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 955
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 956
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 957
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 958
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 959
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperK-Domination/SuperHyperPath. Then the 961
number of 962
(i) : the SuperHyperK-Domination; 963
(ii) : the SuperHyperK-Domination; 964
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperK-Domination; 965
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination; 966
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination; 967
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination. 968
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 969
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 970
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 972
(i) : the dual SuperHyperK-Domination; 973
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperK-Domination; 974
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperK-Domination; 975
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination; 976
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination; 977
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperK-Domination. 978
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 979
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 982
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 983
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 984
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 985
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 989
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 990
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 991
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 994
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 995
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 996
is a 997
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1001
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1002
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1003
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1006
number of 1007
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1011
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1012
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1013
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1014
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1015
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1016
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1018
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1019
(iv) : SuperHyperK-Domination; 1023
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1024
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1025
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1026
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1027
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1028
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1029
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1030
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1034
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1036
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1038
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1039
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1043
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1044
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1045
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1047
SuperHyperK-Domination/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1049
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1050
of a dual 1051
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1055
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1056
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1057
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1059
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1060
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1061
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1067
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1068
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1069
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1070
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1071
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1072
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1073
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1074
such that 1075
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1076
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1077
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1078
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then 1079
(i) S is SuperHyperK-Domination set; 1080
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1081
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1082
Then 1083
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1084
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1085
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1086
which is connected. Then 1087
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1088
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1089
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1090
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1091
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1093
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1094
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1095
a dual SuperHyperK-Domination. 1096
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1097
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1098
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1100
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1101
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1102
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1103
dual SuperHyperK-Domination. 1104
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperK-Domination. Then 1105
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1106
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1108
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1109
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1110
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1111
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperK-Domination. Then 1113
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1114
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1116
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1117
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1118
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1120
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperK-Domination; 1121
(ii) Γ = 1; 1122
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1123
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperK-Domination. 1124
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1125
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1126
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1127
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1128
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1129
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1130
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1131
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1132
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1133
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1135
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1136
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1137
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1139
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1140
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1142

bnc ; 1143
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1144
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1146
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1147
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1148
SuperHyperK-Domination for N SHF; 1149
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1150
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1151
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1152
SuperHyperK-Domination for N SHF : (V, E). 1153
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1154
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1155
SuperHyperSet. Then 1156
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1157
SuperHyperK-Domination for N SHF; 1158
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1159

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1160
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1161
SuperHyperK-Domination for N SHF : (V, E). 1162
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1163
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1164
SuperHyperSet. Then 1165
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1166
SuperHyperK-Domination for N SHF : (V, E); 1167
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1168

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1169
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperK-Domination 1170
for N SHF : (V, E). 1171
Then following statements hold; 1173
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1174
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then S is an 1175
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1176
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1177
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then S is a dual 1178
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1179
Then following statements hold; 1181
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1182
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then S is an 1183
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperK-Domination; 1184
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1185
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination, then S is a dual 1186
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperK-Domination. 1187
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1188
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1189
statements hold; 1190
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1191
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1192
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1193
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1195
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1197
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1198
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1199
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1200
statements hold; 1201
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1202
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1204
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1206
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1208
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1209
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1211
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1212
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1213
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1215
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1217
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1220
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1222
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1223
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1224
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1226
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1228
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination; 1229
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1231
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1233
SuperHyperK-Domination. Then following statements hold; 1234
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1235
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1237
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1239
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1242
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1244
SuperHyperK-Domination. Then following statements hold; 1245
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1246
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1248
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1250
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperK-Domination. 1253
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1254
Neutrosophic Recognition 1255
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1256
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1257
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1258
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1259
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1260
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1261
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1262
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1263
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1264
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1265
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1266
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1267
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1268
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1269
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1270
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1271
happened and what’s done. 1272
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperK-Domination
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1273
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1274
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1275
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1276
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperK-Domination, SuperHyperStar, 1277
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1278
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination or the Neutrosophic 1279
SuperHyperK-Domination in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 1280
SuperHyperModels. 1281
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1282
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1283
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1284
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1285
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1286
featured. 1287
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1288
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1289
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1290
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1291
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1292
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1294
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1295
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1296
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1297
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1298
Neutrosophic featured. 1299
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1300
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1301
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1302
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1303
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1304
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1306
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1307
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1308
The SuperHyperK-Domination and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination are 1309
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1310
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1311
recognitions? 1312
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1313
SuperHyperK-Domination and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination? 1314
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1315
compute them? 1316
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1317
SuperHyperK-Domination and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination? 1318
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperK-Domination and the Neutrosophic 1319
SuperHyperK-Domination do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1320
they’re based on SuperHyperK-Domination, are there else? 1321
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1322
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1323
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1324
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1325
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1326
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1327
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1328
highlighted. 1329
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1330
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1331
SuperHyperK-Domination. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 1332
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based 1333
on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1334
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination, finds the convenient 1335
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1336
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1337
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1338
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1339
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperK-Domination, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1340
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1341
the SuperHyperK-Domination and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination. The 1342
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1343
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1344
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1345
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1346
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1347
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1348
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1349
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1350
formally called “ SuperHyperK-Domination” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1351
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1352
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperK-Domination
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1353
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1354
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1355
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1356
Forms 1357
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1358
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1362
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1363
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1364
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1365
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1367
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1368
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1369
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1370
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1372
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1373
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1374
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1375
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1379
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1381
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1382
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1383
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1384
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1386
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1387
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1390
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1391
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1394
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1395
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1396
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1397
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1398
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1399
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1400
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1401
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1403
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1405
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1406
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1408
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1409
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1410
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1414
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1415
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1416
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1421
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1423
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1424
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1428
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1431
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1432
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1437
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1438
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1440
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1442
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1451
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1452
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1457
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1458
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1459
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1460
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1461
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1462
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1463
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1464
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
SuperHyperDuality. 1473


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-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)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+1i=03 }.

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1536
ESHP : (V, E). Then 1537
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1538
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1542
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1546
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1547
ESHC : (V, E). Then 1548
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality

.
Proof. Let 1549
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 1560
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1561
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1571
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-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) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 1574
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

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperDuality. Thus the notion of quasi 1579
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1580
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1581
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1582
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1583
solution 1586
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1593

= {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 |
Proof. Let 1596
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1597

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1603
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 1608
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1616
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1619
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1620
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1621

∃!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 1626
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1627
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 1634
Forms 1636
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 1637
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 1641
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 1642
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 1643
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1644
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 1646
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 1647
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 1648
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 1649
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1651
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 1652
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 1653
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 1654
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 1658
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 1659
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 1660
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 1661
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1662
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1663
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 1665
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1666
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 1668
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1669
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 1673
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1674
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 1675
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 1676
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1677
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 1682
coefficient; 1683
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1684
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 1687
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 1689
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1690
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 1693
coefficient; 1694
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1695
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1698
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1699
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1700
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 1702
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1703
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 1710
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1711
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 1719
coefficient; 1720
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1721
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1727
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 1730
coefficient. 1731
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1736
SuperHyperJoin. 1744
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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



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

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin

.
Proof. Let 1818
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 1822
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 1826

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

.
Proof. Let 1829
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 1840
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1841

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 1851
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

= (PERFECT MATCHING).
{Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
If ∃Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | =
6 min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |.
i
X
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 |
Proof. Let 1854
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 1859
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 1860
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1861
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1863
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1864
solution 1866
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 1873

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 |
Proof. Let 1876
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1877

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 1881
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 1882
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1883
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 1888
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 1896

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

.
Proof. Let 1899
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1900

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 1904
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 1905
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 1906
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1907
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 1914
Forms 1916
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 1917
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 1921
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1922
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 1923
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1924
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 1926
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1927
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 1928
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 1929
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1931
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 1932
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 1933
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 1934
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1938
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 1940
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1943
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 1945
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1946
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 1953
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1954
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 1955
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 1956
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1962
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1964
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 1965
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1973
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1975
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1980
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 1982
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1983
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 1990
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1991
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1999
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2001
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2010
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2016
SuperHyperPerfect. 2024
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2098
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2102
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2106
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2109
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2120
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2121

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2131
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2134
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 2139
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2140
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2141
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2142
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2143
solution 2146
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2153

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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2156
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2157

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2161
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2162
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2163
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2168
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2176
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2179

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2180

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2184
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2185
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2186
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2187
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2194
Forms 2196
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2197
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2201
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2202
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2203
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2204
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2206
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2207
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2208
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2209
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2211
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2212
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2213
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2214
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2218
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2220
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2223
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2225
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2226
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2228
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2233
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2234
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2235
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2242
coefficient; 2243
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2244
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2250
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2253
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2255
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2260
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2262
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2263
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2270
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2271
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2279
coefficient; 2280
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2281
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2287
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2290
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2296
SuperHyperTotal. 2304
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.


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

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

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

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-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)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 10z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-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)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 11z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+2i=011 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-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)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {E1 , E2 }.

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2378
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2382
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2386
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2389
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2400
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2401
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2411
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

= {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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2414
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2419
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2420
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2423
solution 2426
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2433

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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2436
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2437

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2441
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2442
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2448
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2456
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2459
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2460

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2464
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2465
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2466
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2467
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2474
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2475
Forms 2476
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2477
SuperHyperConnected). 2478
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2482
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2483
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2484
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2485
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2486
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2487
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2489
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2490
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2491
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2492
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2493
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2494
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2496
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2497
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2498
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2499
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2503
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2505
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2506
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2507
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2508
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2510
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2511
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2515
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2518
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2519
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2520
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2521
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2522
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2523
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2524
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2525
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2527
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2528
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2529
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2530
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2531
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2532
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2535
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2538
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2539
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2540
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2543
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2544
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 2545
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 2546
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2547
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2548
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2552
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2555
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2556
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2559
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 2562
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2565
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2567
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2570
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2573
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2576
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 2577
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2582
SuperHyperConnected. 2590
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.


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

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

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Ei+19i=0 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial 10z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+119
i=11
, V22 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-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)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 11z 10 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-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 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2664
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2668
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2672
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2675
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 2686
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2687
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 2697
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2700
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2705
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2706
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2709
solution 2712
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 2719
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vb
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2722
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2727
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2728
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2734
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 2742
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2745
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2747

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2750
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2751
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2752
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2753
17 Background 2761
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2762
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them date back on February 19, 2763
2023. 2764
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 2765
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 2766
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 2767
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 2768
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, K-Domination, 2769
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 2770
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 2771
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 2772
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 2773
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 2774
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 2775
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 2776
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 2777
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 2778
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2779
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 2780
majority of notions. 2781
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 2782
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 2783
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 2784
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 2785
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 2786
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 2787
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 2788
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 2789
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 2790
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2791
results based on initial background. 2792
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 2793
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 2794
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 2795
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2796
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 2797
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 2798
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 2799
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 2800
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 2801
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 2802
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 2803
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2804
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 2805
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 2806
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [52] by Henry Garrett 2807
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2808
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 2809
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 2810
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 2811
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 2812
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 2813
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2814
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2815
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 2816
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)K-Domination alongside (Dual)Dominating in 2817
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 2818
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 2819
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 2820
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 2821
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 2822
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 2823
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 2824
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 2825
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 2826
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 2827
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 2828
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 2829
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 2830
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 2831
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 2832
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 2833
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 2834
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 2835
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 2836
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 2837
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 2838
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 2839
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 2841
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 2842
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 2843
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 2844
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 2845
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 2846
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 2847
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 2848
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 2849
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 2850
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 2851
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 2852
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 2853
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 2854
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 2855
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 2856
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 2857
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 2858
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 2859
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 2860
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2861
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 2862
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 2863
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 2864
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 2865
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 2866
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 2867
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 2868
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [66] by Henry 2869
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 2870
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 2871
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [67] by Henry 2872
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 2873
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 2874
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [68] by Henry 2875
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 2876
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 2877
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [69] by Henry Garrett 2878
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 2879
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 2880
Ref. [72] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 2881
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 2882
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 2883
Ref. [73] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2884
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 2885
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [76] by 2886
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 2887
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 2888
Ref. [79] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 2889
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 2890
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [80] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 2891
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 2892
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 2894
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 2895
in Ref. [82] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 2896
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [83] by Henry 2897
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 2898
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 2899
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [84] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 2900
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 2901
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [95] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 2902
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 2903
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 2904
Ref. [96] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 2905
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 2906
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 2907
proposed as book in Ref. [97] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 2908
Scholar and has more than 3230 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 2909
Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st 2910
Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different 2911
types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 2912
SuperHyperGraph theory. 2913
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 2914
proposed as book in Ref. [98] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 2915
Scholar and has more than 4117 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 2916
and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell 2917
Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different 2918
types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of 2919
duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This 2920
research book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 2921
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 2922
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 2923
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 2924
framework of Extreme SuperHyperDominating, Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating 2925
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [5–96]. Two popular scientific 2926
research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 3230 and 4117 respectively, on 2927
neutrosophic science is on [97, 98]. 2928
– 2929
References 2930
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2931
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 2932
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 2933
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 2934
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 2935
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 2936
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 2937
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 2938
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 2939
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 2940
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 2941
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 2942
4. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 2943
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 2944
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 2945
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 2946
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 2947
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 2948
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 2949
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)K-Domination alongside (Dual)Dominating in 2950
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 2951
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 2952
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 2953
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 2954
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 2955
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 2956
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 2957
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 2958
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 2959
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 2960
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 2961
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 2962
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 2963
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 2964
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 2965
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2966
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 2967
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 2968
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2969
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 2970
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 2971
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 2972
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 2973
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 2974
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 2975
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 2976
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 2977
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 2978
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2979
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 2980
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 2981
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 2982
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 2983
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 2984
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 2985
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 2986
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 2987
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 2988
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 2989
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2990
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 2991
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 2992
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 2993
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 2994
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 2995
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 2996
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 2998
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 2999
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3000
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3001
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3002
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3003
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3005
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3009
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3010
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3011
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3012
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3013
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3014
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3015
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3016
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3017
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3018
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3019
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3020
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3021
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3022
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3023
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3024
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3025
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3026
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3027
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3028
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3029
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3030
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13397.09446). 3031
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3032
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3033
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3034
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3035
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3036
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3039
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11758.69441). 3040
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3041
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3042
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3045
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3046
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3047
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3048
32. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3050
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3051
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3054
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3055
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3057
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3059
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3060
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3062
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3063
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3065
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3066
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3067
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3068
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper Correction On 3069
Super Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3070
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3071
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3072
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3073
10.13140/RG.2.2.33459.30243). 3074
40. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3075
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3076
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3077
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3078
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3079
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3080
42. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3081
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3082
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3083
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3084
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3087
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3088
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3091
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3092
45. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3093
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3095
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3096
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3099
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3100
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3103
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3104
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3105
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3106
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3107
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3108
49. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3109
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3110
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3111
50. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3112
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3113
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3114
51. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3115
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3116
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3117
52. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3118
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3119
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3120
(2023) 35-47. 3121
53. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3122
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3123
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3124
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3125
54. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3126
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3127
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3128
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3129
55. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3130
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3131
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3132
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3133
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3134
56. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3135
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3136
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3137
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3138
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3139
57. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3140
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3141
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3142
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3143
58. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3144
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3145
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3146
59. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3147
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3148
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3150
60. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3151
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3152
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3153
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3154
61. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3155
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3156
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3157
62. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3158
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3159
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3160
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3161
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3162
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3163
63. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3164
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3165
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3166
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3167
64. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3168
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3169
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3170
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3171
65. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3172
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3173
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3174
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3175
66. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3176
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3177
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3178
67. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3179
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3180
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3181
68. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3183
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3185
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3186
69. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3187
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3188
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3189
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3190
70. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3191
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3193
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3194
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3196
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3197
72. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3198
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3199
73. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3201
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3202
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3203
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3208
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3212
76. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3213
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3214
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3215
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3216
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3219
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3221
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3222
79. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3223
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3224
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3227
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3228
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3230
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3231
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3234
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3235
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3237
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3238
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3241
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3242
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3244
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3245
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3247
87. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3249
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3252
88. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3254
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3257
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3264
91. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3265
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3266
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3267
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3268
92. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3269
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3270
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3271
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3272
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3275
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3276
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3279
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3280
95. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3281
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3282
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3283
96. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3284
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3285
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3286
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3287
97. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3288
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3289
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3290
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3291
98. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3292
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3293
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3294
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3295
View publication stats

New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper K-Actions On Super Patterns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper K-Actions On Super Patterns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Cancer's Recognition And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · February 2023

335 PUBLICATIONS 4,398 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

On Combinatorics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper 3

k-Actions On Super Patterns 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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

K-Domination 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

∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ V, such that V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ Ea , Eb ; 14

∀Ea ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 , ∃V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ V, such that V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk ∈ Ea , Eb ; 16

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

v-SuperHyperK-Domination if ∀Va ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Vb ∈ E 0 , ∃E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ∈ E, such 18

that Va , Vb ∈ E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ; Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination if 19

∀Va ∈ EN SHG \ E 0 , ∃Vb ∈ E 0 , ∃E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ∈ E, such that Va , Vb ∈ E1 , E2 , . . . , Ek ; 20

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

SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 22

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, 23

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination. ((Neutrosophic) 24

SuperHyperK-Domination). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 25

K-Dominationed pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 26

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s 27

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 28

re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and 29

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 30

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 31

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 32

consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 33

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; a 34

Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination if it’s either of Neutrosophic 35

e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 36

v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and 37

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 38

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 39

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 40

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 41

Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; an Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination 42

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperK-Domination, 43

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperK-Domination, 44

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 45

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 46

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 47

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 48

Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 49

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperK-Domination; and 50

the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 51

SuperHyperK-Domination SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 52

e-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperK-Domination, Neutrosophic 53

v-SuperHyperK-Domination, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperK-Domination and 54

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 55

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 56

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 57

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 58

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 59

that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperK-Domination; and the Neutrosophic 60

power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 61