New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369245279
New Ideas In Cancer's Recognition And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy
Preprint · March 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23423.28327
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
370 PUBLICATIONS 6,222 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 15 March 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 Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain 3
On Super Stagy 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
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10
S is a Stable-Decompositions 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-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 14
∀Ea0 , Eb0 : Ea0 andEb0 are Stable;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 16
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 19
∀Va0 , Vb0 : Va0 andVb0 are Stable;
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 21
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 24
re-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 25
v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 26
rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. ((Neutrosophic) 27
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 28
S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 29
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if 30
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 31
rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 34
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 35
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36
conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if 39
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 40
rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 43
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 44
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 45
Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 46
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 47
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 48
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 49
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 54
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 55
Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 56
conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 57
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Extreme 58
power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 59
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 60
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 65
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 66
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 67
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive 68
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they 69
form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Neutrosophic power 70
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 71
V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of Neutrosophic 72
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 77
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 78
conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 79
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 80
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; a Neutrosophic 81
V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of Neutrosophic 82
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 87
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 88
Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 89
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 90
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 91
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients 97
defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 98
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 99
conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 100
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Extreme 101
power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 102
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 103
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 108
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 109
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 110
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they 112
form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Neutrosophic power 113
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 114
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 115
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Two different types of 116
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 117
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 118
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 119
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 120
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 121
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 122
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 123
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 124
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 125
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 126
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 127
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 128
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 129
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 130
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 131
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 132
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 133
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 134
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 135
δ−SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 136
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 137
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 138
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 139
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 140
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic 141
δ−SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is a maximal Neutrosophic of 142
SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the 143
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 144
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 145
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 146
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 147
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 148
version of a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions . Since there’s more ways to get 149
type-results to make a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions more understandable. For 150
the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, there’s a need to 151
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperStable-Decompositions ”. The 152
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 153
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 154
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions . It’s redefined a 155
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the mentioned Table holds, 156
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 157
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 158
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 159
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 160
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 161
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 162
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 163
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 164
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 165
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 166
have all SuperHyperStable-Decompositions until the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 167
then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” but otherwise, it isn’t a 168
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions . There are some instances about the clarifications 169
for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperStable-Decompositions ”. These two 170
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 171
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 172
. For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, there’s a 173
need to “redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” 174
and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions ”. The SuperHyperVertices and 175
the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In 176
this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume 177
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if 178
the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions are redefined to a 179
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” if the intended Table holds. It’s 180
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 181
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 182
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 183
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 184
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 185
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 186
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 187
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 188
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 189
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 190
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” where it’s the strongest [the 191
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions amid the 192
maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 193
.] SuperHyperStable-Decompositions . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 194
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 195
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 196
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 197
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s 198
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s 199
SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; 200
it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 201
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 202
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 203
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 204
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 205
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 206
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 207
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 208
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 209
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 210
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 211
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 212
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 213
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 214
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 215
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 216
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 217
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 218
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 219
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 220
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 221
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 222
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 223
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 224
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 225
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 226
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, SuperHyperStar, 227
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 228
either the longest SuperHyperStable-Decompositions or the strongest 229
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 230
longest SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, called SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 231
and the strongest SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, called Neutrosophic 232
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 233
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 234
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 235
of a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. There isn’t any formation of any 236
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 237
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 238
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions theory, 239
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 240
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 241
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 242
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 243
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 244
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 245
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 246
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 247
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 248
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 249
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 250
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 251
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 252
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 253
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 254
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 255
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 256
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 257
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 258
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 259
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 260
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 261
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 262
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 263
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 264
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 265
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 266
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 267
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 268
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 269
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 270
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 271
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 272
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 273
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 274
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 275
formally called “ SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” in the themes of jargons and 276
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 277
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 278
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 279
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 280
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 281
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 282
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 283
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 284
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 285
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 286
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 287
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, SuperHyperStar, 288
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 289
either the optimal SuperHyperStable-Decompositions or the Neutrosophic 290
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 291
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 292
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 293
since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 294
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. There isn’t any formation of any 295
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 296
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 297
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 298
find the “ amount of SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” of either individual of cells or 299
the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the 300
“amount of SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” based on the fixed groups of cells or the 301
fixed groups of group of cells? 302
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 303
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 304
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 305
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 306
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” and “Neutrosophic 307
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic 308
SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 309
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 310
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 311
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 312
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 313
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 314
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 315
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 316
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 317
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 318
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 319
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 320
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 321
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 322
are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” and “Neutrosophic 323
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 324
Stable-Decompositions to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 325
SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 326
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 327
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 328
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 329
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 330
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 331
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 332
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 333
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 334
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 335
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 336
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”, 337
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. 338
There are curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make 339
sense about excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the 340
description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ 341
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”. The keyword of this research debut in the section 342
“Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The 343
Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The 344
Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, 345
“Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 346
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to 347
figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 348
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense 349
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 350
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 351
Research On the Redeemed Ways 352
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 353
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [131],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 354
Set](Ref. [131],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 355
(NSHG)](Ref. [131],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 356
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [131], 357
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 358
(NSHG)](Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 359
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [131],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 360
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [131],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 361
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [131]. 362
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 363
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 364
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [131],Definition 2.1,p.1). 365
Let X be a Stable-Decompositions 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 366
+
]− 0, 1 [. 367
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [131],Definition 2.2,p.2). 368
Let X be a Stable-Decompositions 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. [131],Definition 369
2.5,p.2). 370
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 371
pair S = (V, E), where 372
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 373
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 374
1, 2, . . . , n); 375
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 376
V; 377
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 378
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 379
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 380
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 381
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 382
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 383
(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 . 384
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 385
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 386
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 387
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 388
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 389
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 390
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 391
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 392
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 393
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 394
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 395
(Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3). 396
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 397
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 398
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 399
characterized as follow-up items. 400
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 401
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 402
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 403
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 404
HyperEdge; 405
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 406
SuperEdge; 407
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 408
SuperHyperEdge. 409
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 410
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 411
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [131], Definition 2.7, p.3). 412
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 413
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 414
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 415
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 416
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 417
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 418
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)). 419
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 420
pair S = (V, E), where 421
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 422
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 423
1, 2, . . . , n); 424
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 425
V; 426
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 427
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 428
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 429
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 430
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 431
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ).
P
(viii) i0 432
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 433
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 434
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 435
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 436
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 437
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 438
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 439
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 440
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 441
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 442
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 443
(Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3). 444
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 445
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 446
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 447
characterized as follow-up items. 448
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 449
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 450
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 451
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 452
HyperEdge; 453
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 454
SuperEdge; 455
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 456
SuperHyperEdge. 457
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 458
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 459
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 460
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 461
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 462
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 463
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 464
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 465
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 466
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 467
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 468
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 469
given SuperHyperEdges; 470
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 471
SuperHyperEdges; 472
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 473
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 474
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 475
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 476
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 477
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 478
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 479
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 480
common SuperVertex. 481
Definition 3.14. Let a 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 482
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 483
of following conditions hold: 484
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 485
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 486
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 487
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 488
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 489
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 490
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 491
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 492
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 493
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 494
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 495
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 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 ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 496
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 497
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 498
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 499
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 500
SuperHyperPath . 501
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 502
(Ref. [131],Definition 5.3,p.7). 503
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 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 504
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 505
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 506
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 507
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 508
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 509
(NSHE)). (Ref. [131],Definition 5.4,p.7). 510
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 511
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 512
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 513
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 514
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 515
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 516
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 517
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 519
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 520
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 522
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 523
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 524
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 525
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 526
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). 527
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 529
either V 0 or E 0 is called 530
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following 531
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 532
criteria holds 533
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following 534
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 535
criteria holds 536
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 537
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following 538
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 539
criteria holds 540
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions f the following 541
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 542
criteria holds 543
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 544
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of 545
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 546
rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 549
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). 550
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of 553
rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 557
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 558
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 559
SuperHyperEdges in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme 560
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 561
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 562
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of 563
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 568
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 569
Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 570
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 571
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 572
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 573
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 579
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 580
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 581
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseDecompositionsive Extreme 582
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Extreme power is 584
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 585
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 586
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 592
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 593
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 594
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 595
conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 596
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 597
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded 598
to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 599
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of 600
SuperHyperVertices in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme 607
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 609
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of 610
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 615
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 616
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 620
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 628
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Extreme power is 631
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 632
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 633
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 641
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 644
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded 645
to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 646
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). 647
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 648
(i) an δ−SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is a Neutrosophic kind of 649
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions such that either of the following 650
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 651
s∈S: 652
|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 653
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 654
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is a Neutrosophic 655
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions such that either of the 656
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 657
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 658
|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. 659
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 660
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 661
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, there’s a 662
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 663
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 664
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 665
assign to the values. 666
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 667
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 668
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 669
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 670
understandable. 671
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 672
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 673
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)
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 674
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 675
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 676
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 677
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 678
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 679
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 680
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make 681
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions more Neutrosophicly understandable. 682
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, there’s a 683
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 684
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 685
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 686
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 687
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. It’s redefined a 688
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the Table (3) holds. 689

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 690
But As The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And 691
Super Forms 692
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 693
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of 695
V is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 696
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 697
probability of A. 698
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 699
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 701
called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 702
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 703
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 704
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 705
criteria 706
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)

Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 707
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Any k-function 709
Stable-Decompositions like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 710
2-function Stable-Decompositions like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 711
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 712
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 713
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 715
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 716
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 717
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 718
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. A Neutrosophic number is called 720
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 721
Crossing criteria 722
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.

Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 723
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let m and n 724
propose special Stable-Decompositions. Then with m ≥ 4n, 725
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 726
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 727
Neutrosophic independently with probability Stable-Decompositions p := 4n/m, and set 728
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 729
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

SuperHyperVertices, Y the Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperEdges, and Z the
Neutrosophic number of crossings of H. The trivial bound noted above, when applied to
H, yields the inequality Z ≥ cr(H) ≥ Y − 3X. By linearity of Neutrosophic Expectation,
E(Z) ≥ E(Y ) − 3E(X).
Now E(X) = pn, E(Y ) = p2 m (each SuperHyperEdge having some SuperHyperEnds)

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 730
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
731
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 732
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let P be a 733
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 734
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 735
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 736
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 737
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between 738
conseDecompositionsive points on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least 739
k + 1 points of P. This Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl 740
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, 741
3
in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the 742
2 3
Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and again l < 32n /k . 743
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let P be a 745
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 746
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 747
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 748
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 749
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 750
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 751
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
752
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 753
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between conseDecompositionsive 754
SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three 755
SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 756
n−1
X
e(H) = ini = 2k − n1 − 2n2 ≥ 2k − 2n.
i=3
Some SuperHyperPairs of SuperHyperVertices of H might be joined by some parallel 757
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 758
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 759
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 760
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 761
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 762
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 763
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 764
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let X be a 765
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 766
E(X)
P (X ≥ t) ≤ .
t
Proof.
X X
E(X) = {X(a)P (a) : a ∈ V } ≥ {X(a)P (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t}
X X
{tP (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t} = t {P (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t}
tP (X ≥ t).
Dividing the first and last members by t yields the asserted inequality. 767
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 768
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let Xn be a 769
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Stable-Decompositions 770
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 771
Proof. 772
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. A special 774
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 775
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. A special 777
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of 778
k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 779
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 780
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 781
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 782
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 783
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 784
E(XS ) = P (XS = 1) = P (AS ) = (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 .
Let X be the number of stable SuperHyperSets of cardinality k + 1 in G. Then 785
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 786
X
E(X) = {E(XS ) : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1} = (n choose k+1)(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 .
We bound the right-hand side by invoking two elementary inequalities: 787
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 788
nk+1 e−p)(k+1)choose2 ne−pk/2k+1

E(X) ≤ =
(k + 1)! (k + 1)!
Suppose now that k = d2p−1 log ne. Then k ≥ 2p−1 log n, so ne−pk/2 ≤ 1. Because k 789
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 790
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 791
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 792
stability number at most k. 793
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 794
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 796
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 797
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 798
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let X be a 800
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 801
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let X be a Neutrosophic 803
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 804
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
805
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let Xn be a 807
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Stable-Decompositions (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 808
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 809
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Set X := Xn and 811
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 812
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 813
when Xn = 0. 814
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . 816
For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k 817
for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 818
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 819
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. As in the proof of related 821
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 822
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 824
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 825
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 826
or 827
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 828
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. The latter is 830
straightforward. 831
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 832
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let P be a monotone property of 834
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 835
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 836
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 837
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 838
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 839
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 841
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 842
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 843
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. Let F be a 845
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 846
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 847
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 848
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Decompositions. The latter is 850
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 852
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 853
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 854
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 855
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 856
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 857
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 858
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 859
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 860
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 861
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 862
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 863
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions

= {{Ei }}4i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Decompositions
= {{Vi }i6=1,2 , {Vi }i6=1,4 , {Vi }i6=2,4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
864
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 867
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 868
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 869
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 870
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 871
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 872
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 873

= {{Ei }}4i=1 .
= {{Vi }i6=1,2 , {Vi }i6=1,4 , {Vi }i6=2,4 }.
874

Neutrosophicly straightforward. 877

= {{Ei }}4i=1 .
= {{Vi }i6=1,2 , {Vi }i6=1,3 , {Vi }i6=2,3 }.
878

= {{E4 , E3 , E2 }, {E5 , E3 , E2 }, {E1 , E3 }, {Ei }}
= {{Vi , Vj }Vi ∈{V1 ,V2 ,N,F }, Vj ∈{V4 ,O,H} ,
{V3 , O}, {Vi }}.
882




= {{Ei }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial
= z.
= {{Va , Vb , Vc , Vd }a∈{1,2,3,4},b∈{6,7,8},c∈{9,10,11,12},d∈{13,14,15},{Vi } .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial
= z2.
886

= {{E2i+1i=04 ,E2j+23 }
i=04
{E2i+2i=04 ,E2j+23 },{Eab+c },{Ei }}.

i=04 a,b≥3

= z4.
= {{V2i+1i=04 ,V2j+23 }
i=04
{V2i+2i=04 ,V2j+23 },{Vab+c },{Vi }}.C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynom

i=04 a,b≥3
4
=z .

890
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions =

{{E2i+1i=04 },
{Eab+ca,b≥3 }, {Ei }}.
= z3.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Decompositions =
{V2i+1i=04 },
{Vab+ca,b≥3 }, {Vi }}.
= z3.
894


{{E1 , E2 , E3 }, {Ei , Ej }i,j∈{1,2,3} , {Ea }}.
= z3.
{{Va , Vb , Vc }a∈{1,2,3},b∈{4,5,6,7},c∈{8,9,10,11} ,
{Vd , Ve }Vd ∈Ei ,Ve ∈Ej ,i6=j,i,j6=4 , {Vf }}.
= z3.
898

= {{E2i+1i=04 ,E2j+23 }
i=04
{E2i+2i=04 ,E2j+23 },{Eab+c },{Ei }}.

i=04 a,b≥3

= z4.
= {{V2i+1i=04 ,V2j+23 }
i=04
{V2i+2i=04 ,V2j+23 },{Vab+c },{Vi }}.C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynom

i=04 a,b≥3
4
=z .

902

{{E1 , E2 , E3 }, {Ei , Ej }i,j∈{1,2,3} , {Ea }}.
= z3.
{{Va , Vb , Vc }a∈{1,2,3},b∈{4,5,6,7},c∈{8,9,10,11} ,
{Vd , Ve }Vd ∈Ei ,Ve ∈Ej ,i6=j,i,j6=4 , {Vf }}.
= z3.
906

Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)

(16.3)

{{E6 , E7 , E8 }, {Ei , Ej }i,j{6,7,8} , {Ek }}.
= z3.
{{V1 , V6(4) }, {V2 , V6(5) }, {V3 , V5(4) }, {Vk }}.
= z4.
910

(16.3)

= {{Ei }i=2,3,4,5,6 },
A ⊆ {Ei }i=2,3,4,5,6 }, {Ei }}.
= z2.
= {Va }a=4,5,6,9,10 ,
A ⊆ {Va }a=2,3,4,5,6 }, {Vb }b=1,2,3,7,8 ,
A ⊆ {Va }b=1,2,3,7,8 }, {Vc }}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial =
= z5.
914

(16.3)

{{E6 , E7 , E8 }, {Ei , Ej }i,j{6,7,8} , {Ek }}.
= z3.
{{V1 , V6(4) }, {V2 , V6(5) }, {V3 , V5(4) }, {Vk }}.
= z4.
918

= {{Ei }}.
= z.
= {{V2 , V3 }, {Va }}.
= z2.
922

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {E2i+1i=02 },A⊆{E2i+1 },{Ej }}.
i=02

= z3.
= {{V2i+2i=01 ,V5 },
A ⊆ {V2i+2i=01 ,V5 },{Va }}
= z3.
926

= {E2i+1i=02 },A⊆{E2i+1 },{Ej }}.
i=02

= z3.
= {{V1 , V3 , V10 , V22 }, . . .}.
= az b .

(16.3)
930

= {E2i+1i=02 },A⊆{E2i+1 },{Ej }}.
i=02

= z3.
= {{V27 , V2 , V10 , V22 }, . . .}.
= az b .
934

= {E2i+1i=02 },A⊆{E2i+1 },{Ej }}.
i=02

= z3.
= {{V27 , V2 , V10 , V22 }, . . .}.
= az b .
938

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{E2i+1i=05 },A⊆{E2i+1 },{Ei }}.
i=05

= z3.
= {{VE2i+1 }, B ⊆ {VE2i+1 }, {Va }}.
i=05 i=05

= z3.
942

= {{Ei }}.
= z.
= {{INTERNAL SuperHyperVERTICES}}.
= az b .

(16.3)
946

= {{Ei }}.
= z.
= {{Vi }}.
= z.
950

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {{E2i+2i=01 }, A ⊆ {E2i+2i=01 }, {Ei }}.
= 2z 2 .
= {{Va , Vb , Vc , Vd
}Va ∈{R,P,M,J,V1 },Vb ∈{H6 ,O6 ,E6 ,C6 },Vc ∈{S6 ,R6 ,T6 ,V7 ,V8 ,V9 },Va ∈{T3 ,S3 ,U3 ,V4 ,V5 } },
{Va }}.
= z2.
954
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 955
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 956
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions if for any of them, and any of other 957
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 958
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 959
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 960
amount of them. 961
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 962
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 963
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 964
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions minus all Neutrosophic 965
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 966
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 967
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions, 968
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 969
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Stable-Decompositions is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 970
R-Stable-Decompositions is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 971
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 972
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 973
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 974
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions in 975
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 976
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 977
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic 978
R-Stable-Decompositions. 979
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Stable-Decompositions has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Stable-Decompositions with the least Neutrosophic 980
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 981
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 982
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 983
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−Decompositions = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−Decompositions = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Stable-Decompositions. In other words, the least 984
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic 985
type-result-Stable-Decompositions is the cardinality of 986
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−Decompositions = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−Decompositions = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions since neither amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

eligibilities to propose property such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but the maximum
Neutrosophic cardinality indicates that these Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
couldn’t give us the Neutrosophic lower bound in the term of Neutrosophic sharpness.
In other words, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }}
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but

sometimes the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the
generality of the connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we
assume in the worst case, literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality.
There are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the
setting of the graph titled path and cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely
direction star as the examples-classes, are well-known classes in that setting and they
could be considered as the examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight
bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 987
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 988
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 989
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 990
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 991
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 992
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 993
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 994
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions decorates

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Neutrosophic connections
so as this Neutrosophic style implies different versions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEdges with the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Neutrosophic bound is to
have the maximum Neutrosophic groups of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have
perfect Neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of
this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the
used Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its Neutrosophic properties taken
from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no
Neutrosophic connection. Furthermore, the Neutrosophic existence of one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has no Neutrosophic effect to talk about the Neutrosophic
R-Stable-Decompositions. Since at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices involve
to make a title in the Neutrosophic background of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge but at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices make the
Neutrosophic version of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the Neutrosophic
setting of non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is
used as Neutrosophic adjective for the initial Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces
there’s no Neutrosophic appearance of the loop Neutrosophic version of the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is said to be
loopless. The Neutrosophic adjective “loop” on the basic Neutrosophic framework
engages one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it never happens in this Neutrosophic
setting. With these Neutrosophic bases, on a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s
at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least a Neutrosophic
R-Stable-Decompositions has the Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions has the Neutrosophic
cardinality at least a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Assume a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a Neutrosophic
R-Stable-Decompositions since either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is an obvious
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no Neutrosophic
usage of this Neutrosophic framework and even more there’s no Neutrosophic
connection inside or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its
consequences, there’s a Neutrosophic contradiction with the term “Neutrosophic
R-Stable-Decompositions” since the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality never happens
for this Neutrosophic style of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s
no Neutrosophic connection inside as mentioned in first Neutrosophic case in the forms
of drawback for this selected Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This Neutrosophic case implies having the Neutrosophic style of
on-quasi-triangle Neutrosophic style on the every Neutrosophic elements of this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions is
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that
some Neutrosophic amount of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are
on-quasi-triangle Neutrosophic style. The Neutrosophic cardinality of the v
SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
But the lower Neutrosophic bound is up. Thus the minimum Neutrosophic cardinality
of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality ends up the Neutrosophic discussion. The
first Neutrosophic term refers to the Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClass of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has no on-quasi-triangle
Neutrosophic style amid some amount of its Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. This
Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has only some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Neutrosophic amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The Neutrosophic cardinality of this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the Neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
Neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that
Contains some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 995
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 996
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 997
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 998
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 999
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has at least no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in
common. Thus those Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be
contained in a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions. Those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Neutrosophic
style-R-Stable-Decompositions. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic
R-Stable-Decompositions is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic
R-Stable-Decompositions but with slightly differences in the maximum Neutrosophic
cardinality amid those Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Neutrosophic

E
R-Stable-Decompositions. Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices belong to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) .
Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 1000
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
1001
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 1002
R-Stable-Decompositions is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of 1003
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the 1004
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the 1005
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 1006
Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic 1007
Stable-Decompositions in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic 1008
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 1009
SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a 1010
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions. 1011
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 1012
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 1013
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 1014
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1015
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 1016
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 1017
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1018
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 1019
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 1020
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 1021
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 1022
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions 1023
where the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus 1024
it’s, literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Stable-Decompositions. The 1025
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In 1026
the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1027
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1028
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1029
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 1030
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 1031
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1032
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1033
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1034
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1035
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct types 1036
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions. 1037
Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Neutrosophic 1038
SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the interior 1039
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the 1040
embedded Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions, there’s the usage of exterior 1041
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 1042
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 1043
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1044
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1045
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1046
R-Stable-Decompositions. The Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions with the 1047
exclusion of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1048
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions with 1049
the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1050
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions. To sum them up, 1051
in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s 1052
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1053
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1054
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions minus all Neutrosophic 1055
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 1056
an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1057
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions, 1058
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1059
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions has two titles. a 1060
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1061
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1062
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions with 1063
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1064
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1065
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1066
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositionss for all Neutrosophic 1067
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1068
Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of 1069
the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions, again and more in the operations of 1070
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Decompositionss acted on the all possible 1071
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic 1072
number. This Neutrosophic number is 1073
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1074
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositionss. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1075
GNeutrosophic Stable-Decompositions be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1076
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions. Then 1077
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Stable-Decompositions ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions is 1078
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1079
GNeutrosophic Stable-Decompositions ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1080
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions. 1081
GNeutrosophic Stable-Decompositions =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1082
Stable-Decompositions poses the upcoming expressions. 1083
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1084
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1085

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1086


1087
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1088

1089

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1090
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1091
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1092
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1093
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Stable-Decompositions” but, precisely, it’s the 1094
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Stable-Decompositions” since “Neutrosophic 1095
Quasi-Stable-Decompositions” happens “Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions” in a 1096
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1097
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic 1098
Stable-Decompositions” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1099
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1100
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1101
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-Stable-Decompositions”, 1102
and “Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions” are up. 1103
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1104
GNeutrosophic Stable-Decompositions be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1105
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions and the new 1106
terms are up. 1107

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1108
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1109
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1110
And with go back to initial structure, 1111


1112
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1113

1114

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1115
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1116
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1117
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1118
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1119
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1120
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1121
are coming up. 1122
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
R-Stable-Decompositions.
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

R-Stable-Decompositions. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by
Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions is related to the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic
Stable-Decompositions is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet
called the Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
includes only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. But the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
R-Stable-Decompositions is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

R-Stable-Decompositions. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions and it’s an
Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions. Since it’s
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
for some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions.
There isn’t only less than two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions,
is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Stable-Decompositions, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1123
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1124
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1125
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1126
“Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions” 1127
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1128
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions, 1129
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
Stable-Decompositions, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1130
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions. In other words, the least cardinality, the

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1131
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1132
quasi-R-Stable-Decompositions if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1133
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1134
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1135
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1136
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1137
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1138
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1139
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1140
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1141
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1142
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1143
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1144
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1145
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1146
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1147
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1148
R-Stable-Decompositions. Since it doesn’t have 1149
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1150
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 1151
have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1152
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1153
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1154
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1155
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1156
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1157
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1158
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1159
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1160
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1161
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1162
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1163
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions, VESHE is up. The obvious 1164
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions, 1165
VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1166
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1167
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1168
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1169
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1170
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1171
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1173
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1174
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Decompositions only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1175
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1176
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1177
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1178
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1179
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1180
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1181
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Stable-Decompositions, is up. There’s neither 1182
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1183
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1184
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions. The 1185
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1186
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−Decompositions

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Stable−Decompositions = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Stable−DecompositionsSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1187
Stable-Decompositions. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1188
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1189

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1190
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1191
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Neutrosophic 1193
SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 1194
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are not 1195
only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1196
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions is up. The 1197
obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1198
Stable-Decompositions is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two 1199
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1200
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1201

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1202
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1203
Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1204
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1205

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1206
Stable-Decompositions. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1207
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1208

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1209
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1210
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1211
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1212
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions and it’s an 1213
Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions. Since it’s 1214
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Neutrosophic 1216
SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 1217
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t 1218
only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1219
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1220

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions, 1221

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1222
Stable-Decompositions, not: 1223

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1224

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1225
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1226
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1227
“Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions” 1228
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1229
Neutrosophic Stable-Decompositions, 1230
is only and only 1231

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1232
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1233
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1234
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1235
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1236
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1237
Then 1238

= {{E2i+12i+1=b|EN SHG |c },
A ⊆ {E2i+12i+1=b|EN SHG |c ,{Ei }}.
= z3.
IN T ERN AL
= {{V2i+1 },
2i+1=b|E N SHG |c
IN T ERN AL
A⊆ {V2i+1 2i+1=b|EN SHG |c },{Va }}.
C(NSHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial 1239
3
=z . 1240
Proof. Let 1241
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1242
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 1243
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1244
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 1245
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1246
The latter is straightforward. 1247
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1248
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1249
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1250
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Example (16.5)
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1251
Then 1252

= {{E2i+12i+1=b|EN SHG |c },
A ⊆ {E2i+12i+1=b|EN SHG |c ,{Ei }}.
= z3.
IN T ERN AL
= {{V2i+1 },
2i+1=b|E N SHG |c
IN T ERN AL
A⊆ {V2i+1 2i+1=b|EN SHG |c },{Va }}.
3
=z . 1254
Proof. Let 1255
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

1256
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 1257
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1258

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1262
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1263
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1264
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1266
Then 1267

= {{Ei }}.
= z.
= {{ViIN T ERN AL }, A ⊆ {ViIN T ERN AL }, {V IN T ERN AL }}.
= z3.
Proof. Let 1268
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1269
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1270
There’s a new way to redefine as 1271

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1275
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1276
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1277
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1278
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1279
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1281
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1282

= {{MATCHING SuperHyperEdges},
A ⊆ {MATCHING SuperHyperEdges},
{Ei }}.
= z3.
= {{One From Every MATCHING SuperHyperVertices},
B ⊆ {One From Every MATCHING SuperHyperVertices},
{Vi }}.
= z3.
Proof. Let 1283
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
1284
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 1285
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1286

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1289
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1290
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperStable-Decompositions could be applied. 1291
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1292
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1293
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperStable-Decompositions taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1294
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1295
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1296
solution 1297
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1299
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1300
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1301
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1302
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1303
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1304
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1305
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Example
(16.11)
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1306

= {{MATCHING SuperHyperEdges},
A ⊆ {MATCHING SuperHyperEdges},
{Ei }}.
= z3.
= {{One From Every MATCHING SuperHyperVertices},
B ⊆ {One From Every MATCHING SuperHyperVertices},
{Vi }}.
= z3.
Proof. Let 1307
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
1308
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1310

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1313
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1314
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperStable-Decompositions could be applied. 1315
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1316
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1318
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1319
solution 1321
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1323
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1324
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1325
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1326
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1327
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1328
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1329
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1330
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Example (16.13)
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1331

∗
= {{E2i+1 },
2i+1=b|E N SHG |c
∗
A⊆ {E2i+1 2i+1=b|E ∗
∗
|c ,{Ei }}.
N SHG

= z3.
IN T ERN AL
= {{V2i+1 2i+1=b|E ∗ |c },
N SHG
IN T ERN AL
A⊆ {V2i+1 2i+1=b|E ∗ |c },{Va }}.
N SHG
=z3 . 1333
Proof. Let 1334
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1335
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1337

Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1340
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1341
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperStable-Decompositions could be applied. The 1342
unique embedded SuperHyperStable-Decompositions proposes some longest 1343
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1344
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1347
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1348
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1349
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1350
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1352
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1353
For the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 1354
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and the Neutrosophic 1355
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, some general results are introduced. 1356
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is 1357
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1358
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Then 1359
N eutrosophic SuperHyperStable − Decompositions =

{theSuperHyperStable − Decompositionsof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperStable − Decompositions
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperStable−Decompositions. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1360
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1361
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1362
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1363
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and 1364
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions coincide. 1365
of the alphabet. Then a conseDecompositionsive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1367
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if and only if it’s a 1368
of the alphabet. Then a conseDecompositionsive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1371
strongest SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if and only if it’s a longest 1372
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1374
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1375
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is its SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and reversely. 1376
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic 1377
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, SuperHyperStar, 1378
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1379
letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is its 1380
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and reversely. 1381
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1382
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1383
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions isn’t well-defined. 1384
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1385
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1386
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 1390
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1391
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1393
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is well-defined if and only if its 1394
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is well-defined. 1395
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1396
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is well-defined if and only if its 1397
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 1401
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions is well-defined if and only if its 1402
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1404
is 1405
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1406
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1407
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1408
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1409
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1410
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1411
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1412
∅ is 1413
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1414
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1415
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1416
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1417
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1418
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1419
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1420
independent SuperHyperSet is 1421
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1422
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1423
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1424
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1425
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1426
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1427
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1428
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions/SuperHyperPath. Then 1429
V is a maximal 1430
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1431
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1432
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1433
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1434
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1435
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1436
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1437
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1438
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1439
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1440
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1441
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1442
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1443
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1444
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1445
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1447
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStable-Decompositions/SuperHyperPath. Then 1449
the number of 1450
(i) : the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1451
(ii) : the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1452
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1453
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1454
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1455
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1456
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1457
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1458
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1460
(i) : the dual SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1461
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1462
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1463
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1464
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1465
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1466
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1467
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1470
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1471
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1472
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1473
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1477
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1478
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1479
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1483
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1484
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1485
is a 1486
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1490
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1491
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1492
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1495
number of 1496
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1500
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1501
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1502
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1504
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1505
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1506
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1508
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1509
(iv) : SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1513
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1514
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1515
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1516
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1517
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1518
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1519
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1520
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1524
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1525
(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1530
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1531
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1535
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1536
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1537
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1539
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1541
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1542
of a dual 1543
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1547
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1548
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1550
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1553
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1554
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1555
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1559
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1564
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1565
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1566
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1567
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1568
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1569
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then 1570
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1571
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1572
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1573
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1574
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then 1575
(i) S is SuperHyperStable-Decompositions set; 1576
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1577
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1578
Then 1579
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1580
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1581
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1582
which is connected. Then 1583
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1584
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1585
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1586
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1587
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1589
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1590
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1591
a dual SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1592
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1593
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1594
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1596
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1597
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1598
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1599
dual SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1600
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1601
Then 1602
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1603
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1605
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1606
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1607
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1608
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1610
Then 1611
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1612
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1614
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1615
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1616
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1618
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1619
(ii) Γ = 1; 1620
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1621
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1622
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1624
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1625
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1626
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1627
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1628
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1629
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1630
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1631
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1632
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1634
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1635
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1636
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1638
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1639
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1641

bnc ; 1642
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1643
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1645
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1646
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1647
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions for N SHF; 1648
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1649
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1650
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1651
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions for N SHF : (V, E). 1652
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1653
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1654
SuperHyperSet. Then 1655
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1656
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions for N SHF; 1657
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1658

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1659
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1660
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1662
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1663
SuperHyperSet. Then 1664
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1665
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions for N SHF : (V, E); 1666
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1667

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1668
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1669
Then following statements hold; 1672
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1673
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then S is an 1674
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1675
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1676
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then S is a dual 1677
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1678
Then following statements hold; 1680
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1681
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then S is an 1682
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1683
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1684
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, then S is a dual 1685
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1686
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1687
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1688
statements hold; 1689
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1690
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1691
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1692
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1694
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1696
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1697
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1698
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1699
statements hold; 1700
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1701
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1703
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1705
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1707
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1708
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1710
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1711
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1712
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1714
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1716
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1719
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1721
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1722
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1723
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1725
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1727
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; 1728
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1730
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1732
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Then following statements hold; 1733
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1734
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1736
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1738
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1741
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1743
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. Then following statements hold; 1744
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1745
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1747
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1749
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. 1752
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1753
Neutrosophic Recognition 1754
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1755
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1756
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1757
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1758
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1759
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1760
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1761
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1762
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1763
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1764
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1765
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1766
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1767
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1768
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1769
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1770
happened and what’s done. 1771
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, which 1772
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic models. 1773
The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 1774
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 1775
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1777
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions or the 1778
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions in those Neutrosophic 1779
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1780
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

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

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1781
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1782
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1783
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1784
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1785
featured. 1786
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1787
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1788
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1789
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1790
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1791
Figure 30. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

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

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1793
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1794
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1795
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1796
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1797
Neutrosophic featured. 1798
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1799
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1800
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1801
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1802
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1803
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1805
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1806
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1807
The SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and the Neutrosophic 1808
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions are defined on a real-world application, titled 1809
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1810
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1811
recognitions? 1812
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1813
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and the Neutrosophic 1814
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions? 1815
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1816
compute them? 1817
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1818
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and the Neutrosophic 1819
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions? 1820
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and the Neutrosophic 1821
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1822
and they’re based on SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, are there else? 1823
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1824
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1825
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1826
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1827
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1828
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1829
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1830
highlighted. 1831
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1832
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1833
SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1834
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1835
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the 1836
new SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, finds the 1837
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some 1838
SuperHyperClasses and some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this 1839
research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to 1840
recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1841
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, 1842
the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general 1843
results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and the 1844
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions. The clarifications, instances and 1845
literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature 1846
reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 1847
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 1848
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 1849
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 1850
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 1851
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 1852
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 1853
called “ SuperHyperStable-Decompositions” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1854
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1855
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this 1856
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1857
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperStable-Decompositions
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1858
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1859
Forms 1860
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1861
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1865
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1866
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1867
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1868
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1869
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1870
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1871
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1872
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1873
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1874
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1875
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1876
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1877
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1878
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1881
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1883
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1884
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1885
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of 1886
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1887
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1888
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1889
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1892
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1893
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 1895
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1896
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1897
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1898
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1899
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1900
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1901
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1902
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseDecompositionsive 1903
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1905
Extreme coefficient; 1906
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1907
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1908
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1910
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1911
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1912
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1916
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1917
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1918
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of 1923
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1925
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1926
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1930
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1933
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1934
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1939
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1940
conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1941
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the 1942
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 1943
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1944
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1953
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1954
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1958
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1959
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1960
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1961
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1962
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1963
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1964
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1965
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.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1968
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1969
SuperHyperDuality. 1974


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 2037
ESHP : (V, E). Then 2038
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

= {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 2039
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 2043
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2047
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2048
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2049
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 2050
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2061
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 2062
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2072
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 2075
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 2080
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2081
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2084
solution 2087
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2094

= {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 2097
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2098

P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2109
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2117
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 2120
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 2121
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2122

∃!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 2127
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2128
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2135
Forms 2137
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2138
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2142
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2143
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2144
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2145
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2147
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2148
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2149
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2150
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2152
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2153
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2154
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2155
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2158
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2159
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2160
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2165
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2166
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2168
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2169
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2173
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2174
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2175
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2176
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2177
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2182
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2184
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2187
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2188
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2189
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2193
coefficient; 2194
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2195
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2198
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2199
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2202
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2203
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2210
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2211
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the 2219
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2221
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2230
coefficient. 2231
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2235
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2236
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2237
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2238
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2239
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2240
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2241
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2242
SuperHyperJoin. 2243
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .


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 = {V5 }.
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 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 = 10z.

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 2317
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2321
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2325

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

.
Proof. Let 2328
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2339
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 2340

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2350
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 2353
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 2358
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2359
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2362
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2363
solution 2365
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2372

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 2375
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2376

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2380
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2381
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2387
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2395

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

.
Proof. Let 2398
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2399

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2403
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2404
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2405
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2406
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2413
Forms 2415
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2416
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2420
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2421
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2422
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2423
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2425
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2426
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2427
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2428
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2430
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2431
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2432
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2433
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2436
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2438
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of 2441
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2443
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2444
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2451
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2452
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2453
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2454
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2460
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2462
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2463
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2471
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2473
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of 2478
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2480
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2481
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2488
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2489
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the 2497
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2499
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2508
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2513
SuperHyperPerfect. 2521
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 2595
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2599
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2603
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 2606
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2617
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2618

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2628
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 2631
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 2636
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2637
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2638
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2639
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2640
solution 2643
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2650

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 2653
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2654

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2658
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2659
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2660
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2665
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2673
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2676

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2677

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2681
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2682
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2683
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2684
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2691
Forms 2693
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2694
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2698
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2699
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2700
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2701
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2703
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2704
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2705
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2706
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2708
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2709
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2710
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2711
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2714
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2716
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2721
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2722
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2724
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2729
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2730
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2731
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2738
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2740
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2749
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2751
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2758
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2759
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2766
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2767
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the 2775
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2777
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2786
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2791
SuperHyperTotal. 2799
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 2873
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2877
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2881
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 2884
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 2895
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 2896
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2906
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 2909
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2914
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2915
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2918
solution 2921
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2928

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 2931
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2932

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2936
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2937
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2943
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2951
∗
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 2954
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2955

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2959
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2960
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2961
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2962
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2969
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2970
Forms 2971
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2972
SuperHyperConnected). 2973
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2977
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2978
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2979
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2980
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2981
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2982
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2984
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2985
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2986
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2987
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2988
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2989
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2991
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2992
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2993
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2994
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2997
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2999
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3000
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3001
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme 3002
sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 3003
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3004
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3005
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3008
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 3009
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3012
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 3013
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 3014
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 3015
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 3016
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 3017
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 3018
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 3019
Extreme cardinality conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 3020
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 3021
SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 3022
coefficient; 3023
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3024
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 3025
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 3026
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3027
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 3030
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3033
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 3034
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3035
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3038
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3039
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseDecompositionsive Extreme 3040
sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 3041
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3042
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3043
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3046
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3047
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3051
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3054
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3057
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3060
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3062
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3065
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3068
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3072
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3076
SuperHyperConnected. 3084
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 3158
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 3162
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3166
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 3169
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 3180
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 3181
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3191
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 3194
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3199
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3200
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3203
solution 3206
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3213
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 3216
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3221
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3222
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3228
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3236
∗
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 3239
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3241

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3244
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3245
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3246
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3247
17 Background 3255
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3256
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them date back on March 09, 3257
2023. 3258
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3259
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3260
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3261
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3262
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3263
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3264
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3265
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3266
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3267
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3268
results based on initial background. 3269
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3270
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3271
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3272
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3273
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3274
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3275
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3276
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3277
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3278
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3279
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3280
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3281
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3282
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3283
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [87] by Henry Garrett 3284
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3285
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3286
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3287
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3288
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3289
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3290
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3291
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3292
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3293
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3294
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3295
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 3296
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3297
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3298
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3299
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3300
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 3301
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3302
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3303
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3304
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3305
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3306
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 3307
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3308
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3309
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3310
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3311
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3312
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3313
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3314
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3315
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3316
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 3317
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3318
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3319
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 3320
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 3321
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3322
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 3323
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3324
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3325
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3326
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 3327
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3328
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3329
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3330
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3331
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3332
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3333
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3334
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3335
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 3336
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3337
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 3338
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3339
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3340
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3341
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3342
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 3343
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3344
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [101] by Henry Garrett 3345
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3346
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3347
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [102] by Henry Garrett 3348
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3349
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3350
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [103] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3351
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3352
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3353
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [104] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3354
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3355
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [107] by 3356
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3357
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3358
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [108] by Henry 3359
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3360
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3361
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [111] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3362
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3363
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [114] by Henry 3364
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3365
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3366
in Ref. [115] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3367
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3368
Ref. [116] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3369
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3370
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [117] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3371
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3372
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [118] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3373
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3374
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3375
in Ref. [119] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3376
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3377
in Ref. [130] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3378
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3379
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [131] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3380
and [4–55, 57–131], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions 3381
about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 3382
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3383
proposed as book in Ref. [132] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 3384
Scholar and has more than 3230 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3385
Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st 3386
Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different 3387
types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3388
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3389
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3390
proposed as book in Ref. [133] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 3391
Scholar and has more than 4117 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3392
and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell 3393
Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different 3394
types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of 3395
duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This 3396
research book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3397
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3398
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3399
See the seminal scientific researches [1, 2]. The formalization of the notions on the 3400
framework of notions In SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions In 3401
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory 3402
at [4–55, 57–131]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3403
readers, 3230 and 4117 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [132, 133]. 3404
– 3405
References 3406
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3407
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3408
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3409
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3410
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3411
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3412
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3413
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3414
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3415
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3416
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3417
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3418
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3419
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3420
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3421
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3422
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3423
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3424
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3425
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3426
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3427
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3428
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3429
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3430
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3431
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3432
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3433
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3434
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3435
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3436
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3437
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3438
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3439
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3440
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3441
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3442
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3443
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3444
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3445
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3446
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3447
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3448
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3449
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3450
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3451
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3452
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3453
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3454
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3455
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3456
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3457
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3458
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3459
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3460
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3461
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3462
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3463
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3464
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3465
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3466
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3467
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3469
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3470
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3471
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3472
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3473
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3474
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3476
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3480
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3481
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3482
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3483
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3484
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3485
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3486
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3487
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3488
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3489
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3490
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3491
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3492
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3493
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3494
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3495
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3496
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3497
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3498
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3499
24. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3500
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3501
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23525.68320). 3502
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3503
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3504
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3505
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3507
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3509
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3510
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29764.71046). 3511
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3513
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3514
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3515
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3516
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3519
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3521
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3523
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3525
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3526
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3528
34. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3530
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3532
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3534
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3535
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3536
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3537
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3538
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3540
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3541
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3542
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3543
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3546
40. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3548
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3549
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3552
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3553
42. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3554
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3555
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3558
44. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3560
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3562
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3564
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3565
46. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3566
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3567
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3570
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3571
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3572
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3573
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3576
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3577
50. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3578
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3579
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3582
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3583
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3584
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3585
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3588
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3589
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3590
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3591
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3594
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3595
56. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3596
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3597
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3599
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3600
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3602
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3603
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3606
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3607
60. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3608
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3609
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3612
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3613
62. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3614
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3615
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3618
64. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3620
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3621
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3624
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3625
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3626
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3627
67. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3629
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3630
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3633
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3634
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3636
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3638
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3639
71. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3641
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3642
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3644
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3645
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3646
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3647
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3648
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3649
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3650
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3651
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3653
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3654
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3655
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3656
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3657
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3658
77. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3659
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3660
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3661
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3662
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3665
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3666
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3669
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3670
80. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3671
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3673
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3674
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3677
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3678
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3681
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3682
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3683
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3684
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3685
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3686
84. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3687
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3688
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3689
85. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3690
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3691
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3692
86. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3693
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3694
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3695
87. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3696
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3697
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3698
(2023) 35-47. 3699
88. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3700
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3701
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3702
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3703
89. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3704
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3705
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3706
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3707
90. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3708
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3709
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3710
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3711
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3712
91. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3713
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3714
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3715
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3716
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3717
92. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3718
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3719
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3720
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3721
93. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3722
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3723
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3724
94. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3725
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3726
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3728
95. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3729
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3730
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3731
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3732
96. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3733
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3734
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3735
97. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3736
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3737
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3738
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3739
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3740
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3741
98. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3742
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3743
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3744
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3745
99. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3746
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3747
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3748
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3749
100. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3750
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3751
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3752
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3753
101. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3754
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3755
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3756
102. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3757
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3758
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3759
103. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3761
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3762
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3763
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3764
104. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3765
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3766
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3767
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3768
105. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3769
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3770
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3771
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3772
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3774
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3775
107. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3776
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3777
108. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3779
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3780
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3781
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3786
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3790
111. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3791
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3792
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3793
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3794
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3797
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3799
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3800
114. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3801
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3802
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3805
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3806
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3808
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3809
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3812
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3813
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3815
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3816
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3819
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3820
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3822
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3823
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3825
122. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3827
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3830
123. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3832
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3835
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3842
126. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3843
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3844
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3845
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3846
127. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3847
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3848
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3849
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3850
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3853
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3854
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3857
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3858
130. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3859
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3860
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3861
131. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3862
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3863
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3864
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3865
132. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3866
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3867
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3868
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3869
133. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3870
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3871
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3872
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3873
View publication stats

New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy

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 Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy

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 · March 2023

370 PUBLICATIONS 6,222 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10

S is a Stable-Decompositions 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-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 14

∀Ea0 , Eb0 : Ea0 andEb0 are Stable;

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 15

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 16

∀Ea0 , Eb0 : Ea0 andEb0 are Stable;

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

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 19

∀Va0 , Vb0 : Va0 andVb0 are Stable;

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions criteria holds 21

∀Va0 , Vb0 : Va0 andVb0 are Stable;

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

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 26

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 28

S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 29

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if 30

it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 31

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 33

rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 34

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 35

of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36

conseDecompositionsive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Decompositions if 39

it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, Neutrosophic 40

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 42

rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 43

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 44

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 45

Neutrosophic cardinality conseDecompositionsive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 46

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 47

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions; an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Decompositions 48

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 49

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 52

rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 53

N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 54

Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 56

conseDecompositionsive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 57

power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 59

SuperHyperStable-Decompositions SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 60

v-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions, and Neutrosophic 63

rv-SuperHyperStable-Decompositions and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 64

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 65

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 66

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 67