New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369274134
New Ideas In Cancer's Recognition And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous
Preprint · March 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31025.45925
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
373 PUBLICATIONS 6,374 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 16 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-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3
Super Nebulous 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-Neighbor). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 10
a Stable-Neighbor 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-Neighbor if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 14
∀Ei ∈ E 0 : N (Ei )is Stable;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 16
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 19
∀Vi ∈ V 0 : N (Vi )is Stable;
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 21
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 23
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 24
v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 25
((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable-Neighbor). Assume a Neutrosophic 26
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 27
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 28
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 29
v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and 31
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 32
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 33
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 34
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 35
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of 36
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 37
re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and 38
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 39
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 40
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 41
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 42
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 43
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor 44
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 45
v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and 47
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 48
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 49
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 50
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 51
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 52
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 53
coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 54
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 55
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 58
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 59
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 60
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 61
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 62
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded 63
to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either 64
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 65
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 67
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 68
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 69
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 70
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; a 71
Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 72
e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 73
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic 74
rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 75
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 76
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 77
cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 78
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 79
an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 80
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 84
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 85
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 86
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 87
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and 88
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 89
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 90
rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 93
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic 94
coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic 95
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 96
of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 97
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 99
Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is introduced for new 100
SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and Neutrosophic 101
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut 102
for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, 103
and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature 104
review is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the 105
significancy of this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other 106
SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions 107
are followed by the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with 108
different tools. The applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical 109
aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to 110
figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special 111
case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. 112
Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. 113
These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 114
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 115
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 116
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 117
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 118
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 119
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 120
δ−SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 121
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 122
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 123
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 124
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 125
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is a 126
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 127
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 128
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 129
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 130
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 131
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 132
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 133
version of a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 134
make a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor more understandable. For the sake of having 135
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 136
“SuperHyperStable-Neighbor ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 137
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 138
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 139
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor 140
if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 141
HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 142
with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 143
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 144
“The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 145
HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 146
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 147
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 148
based on a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 149
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 150
have all SuperHyperStable-Neighbor until the SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then it’s 151
officially called a “SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” but otherwise, it isn’t a 152
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor . There are some instances about the clarifications for the 153
main definition titled a “SuperHyperStable-Neighbor ”. These two examples get more 154
scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 155
SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor . For the sake of having a 156
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 157
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” and a “Neutrosophic 158
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 159
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 160
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 161
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 162
Table holds. And a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 163
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 164
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 165
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor more 166
understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 167
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 168
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 169
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 170
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”, “Neutrosophic 171
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 172
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 173
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” where 174
it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the 175
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices 176
from a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor .] SuperHyperStable-Neighbor . A graph is a 177
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 178
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 179
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 180
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 181
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 182
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 183
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 184
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 185
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 186
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 187
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 188
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 189
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 190
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 191
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 192
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 193
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 194
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 195
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 196
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 197
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 198
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 199
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 200
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 201
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 202
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 203
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 204
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 205
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 206
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 207
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 208
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 209
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 210
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 211
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest 212
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor or the strongest SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in those 213
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, called 214
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and the strongest SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, called 215
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, some general results are introduced. Beyond 216
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 217
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 218
any style of a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. There isn’t any formation of any 219
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 220
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 221
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor theory, SuperHyperGraphs, 222
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 223
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Cancer’s 224
Neutrosophic Recognition 225
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 226
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 227
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 228
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 229
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 230
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 231
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 232
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 233
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 234
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 235
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 236
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 237
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 238
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 239
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 240
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 241
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 242
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 243
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 244
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 245
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 246
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 247
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 248
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 249
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 250
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 251
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 252
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 253
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 254
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 255
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 256
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 257
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 258
formally called “ SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 259
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 260
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 261
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 262
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 263
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 264
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 265
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 266
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 267
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 268
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 269
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 270
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, 271
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 272
either the optimal SuperHyperStable-Neighbor or the Neutrosophic 273
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general 274
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic 275
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 276
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 277
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. There isn’t any formation of any 278
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 279
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 280
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 281
find the “ amount of SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” of either individual of cells or the 282
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 283
of SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 284
group of cells? 285
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 286
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 287
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 288
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 289
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” on 290
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 291
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 292
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 293
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 294
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 295
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 296
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 297
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 298
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 299
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 300
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 301
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 302
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and 303
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, are figured out in sections “ 304
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”. In the 305
sense of tackling on getting results and in Stable-Neighbor to make sense about 306
continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 307
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 308
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 309
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going 310
back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 311
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 312
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 313
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 314
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 315
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 316
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 317
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”, 318
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 319
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 320
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 321
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 322
presented in section, “ SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”. The keyword of this research 323
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 324
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 325
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 326
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 327
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 328
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 329
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 330
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 331
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 332
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 333
Research On the Redeemed Ways 334
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 335
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [132],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 336
Set](Ref. [132],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 337
(NSHG)](Ref. [132],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 338
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [132],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [132], 339
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 340
(NSHG)](Ref. [132],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 341
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [132],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 342
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [132],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 343
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [132]. 344
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 345
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 346
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [132],Definition 2.1,p.1). 347
Let X be a Stable-Neighbor 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 348
+
]− 0, 1 [. 349
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [132],Definition 2.2,p.2). 350
Let X be a Stable-Neighbor 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. [132],Definition 351
2.5,p.2). 352
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 353
pair S = (V, E), where 354
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 355
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 356
1, 2, . . . , n); 357
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 358
V; 359
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 360
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 361
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 362
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 363
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 364
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );
P
(viii) i0 365
(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 . 366
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 367
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 368
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 369
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 370
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 371
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 372
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 373
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 374
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 375
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 376
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 377
(Ref. [132],Definition 2.7,p.3). 378
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 379
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 380
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 381
characterized as follow-up items. 382
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 383
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 384
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 385
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 386
HyperEdge; 387
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 388
SuperEdge; 389
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 390
SuperHyperEdge. 391
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 392
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 393
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [132], Definition 2.7, p.3). 394
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 395
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 396
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 397
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 398
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 399
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 400
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)). 401
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 402
pair S = (V, E), where 403
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 404
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 405
1, 2, . . . , n); 406
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 407
V; 408
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 409
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 410
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 411
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 412
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 413
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 414
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 415
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 416
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 417
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 418
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 419
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 420
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 421
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 422
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 423
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 424
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 425
(Ref. [132],Definition 2.7,p.3). 426
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 427
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 428
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 429
characterized as follow-up items. 430
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 431
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 432
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 433
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 434
HyperEdge; 435
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 436
SuperEdge; 437
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 438
SuperHyperEdge. 439
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 440
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 441
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 442
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 443
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 444
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 445
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 446
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 447
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 448
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 449
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 450
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 451
given SuperHyperEdges; 452
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 453
SuperHyperEdges; 454
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 455
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 456
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 457
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 458
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 459
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 460
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 461
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 462
common SuperVertex. 463
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 464
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 465
of following conditions hold: 466
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 467
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 468
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 469
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 470
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 471
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 475
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 476
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 477
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. 478
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 479
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 480
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 481
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 482
SuperHyperPath . 483
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 484
(Ref. [132],Definition 5.3,p.7). 485
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 486
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 487
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 488
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 489
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 490
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 491
(NSHE)). (Ref. [132],Definition 5.4,p.7). 492
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 493
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 494
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 495
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 496
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 497
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 498
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 499
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 501
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 502
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 504
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 505
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 506
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 507
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 508
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor). 509
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 511
either V 0 or E 0 is called 512
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the following expression is 513
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 514
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the following expression is 515
called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 516
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 517
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the following expression is 518
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 519
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor f the following expression is 520
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 521
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 522
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 523
rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 526
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable-Neighbor). 527
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 530
rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 533
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 534
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 535
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 536
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 537
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 538
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 539
rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 542
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 543
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 544
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 548
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 549
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 552
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 553
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 554
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 555
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 556
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 557
its Extreme coefficient; 558
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if 559
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 560
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 563
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 564
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 565
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 566
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 567
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Neutrosophic 568
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 569
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 570
rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 573
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 574
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 575
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 576
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 577
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of 579
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 583
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 584
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if 588
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 594
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 597
its Extreme coefficient; 598
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if 599
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 605
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Neutrosophic 608
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 609
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperStable-Neighbor). 610
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 611
(i) an δ−SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 612
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor such that either of the following expressions hold for 613
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 614
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

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

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
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)
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 621
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 622
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 623
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, there’s a need to 624
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 625
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 626
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 627
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 628
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 629
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 630
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 631
understandable. 632
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 633
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 634
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 635
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 636
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 637
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 638
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 639
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 640
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 641
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 642
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor more Neutrosophicly understandable. 643
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, there’s a need to 644
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”. The 645
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 646
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 647
assign to the values. 648
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. It’s redefined a 649
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the Table (3) holds. 650

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor But 651
As The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And 652
Super Forms 653
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 654
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V is 656
called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 657
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 658
probability of A. 659
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 660
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 662
Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 663
s-independent criteria 664
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 665
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 666
criteria 667
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 668
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Any k-function Stable-Neighbor like E is 670
called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Stable-Neighbor like 671
E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 672
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 673
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 674
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a number 676
is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 677
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 678
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 679
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. A Neutrosophic number is called 681
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 682
Crossing criteria 683
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 684
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let m and n propose 685
special Stable-Neighbor. Then with m ≥ 4n, 686
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 687
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 688
Neutrosophic independently with probability Stable-Neighbor p := 4n/m, and set 689
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 690
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: 691
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
692
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 693
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let P be a 694
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 695
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 696
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 697
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 698
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive 699
points on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 700
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 701
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 702
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 703
2 3
again l < 32n /k . 704
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let P be a 706
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 707
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 708
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 709
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 710
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 711
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 712
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
713
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 714
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints 715
on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 716
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 717
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 718
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 719
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 720
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 721
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 722
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 723
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 724
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let X be a 725
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 726
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. 727
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 728
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let Xn be a 729
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Stable-Neighbor (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 730
E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 731
Proof. 732
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. A special 734
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 735
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. A special SuperHyperGraph in 737
Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 738
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 739
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 740
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 741
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 742
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 743
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 744
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 745
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 746
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: 747
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 748
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 749
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 750
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 751
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 752
stability number at most k. 753
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 754
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a number 756
is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 757
Variance criteria 758
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let X be a 760
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 761
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let X be a Neutrosophic 763
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 764
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
765
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let Xn be a 767
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Stable-Neighbor (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 768
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 769
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| 771
in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 772
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 773
when Xn = 0. 774
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 776
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 777
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 778
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 779
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. As in the proof of related 781
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 782
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let 784
f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 785
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 786
or 787
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 788
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. The latter is straightforward. 790
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 791
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let P be a monotone property of 793
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 794
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 795
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 796
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 797
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 798
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 800
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 801
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 802
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let F be a nonempty 804
balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 805
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 806
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 807
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. The latter is straightforward. 809
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 810
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 811
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 812
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 813
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 814
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 815
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 816
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 817
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 818
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 819
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 820
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 821
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor

= {Ei }3i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Neighbor
= {V3 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
822
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 825
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 826
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 827
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 828
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 829
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 830


= {Ei }3i=1 .
= {V3 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
832
straightforward. 835

= {Ei }3i=1 .
= {}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial = 0z 0 .
836



= {Ei }3i=2 .
= {}.
840


= {}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
844

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
848


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
852
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor =

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z3.
= {}.
856




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
860

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z3.
= {}.
864
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

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

{E1 }.
= z.
= {}.
868

= {Eii=16 }.
= z6.
= {Vii=4,5,6,9,10 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial =
= z5.
872

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
876

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z2.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
880

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }.
= z5.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 }.
= z6.
884

= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }.
= z5.
= {VE1 , VE2 , VE3 , VE4 , VE5 , VE6 }.
= bz 6 .
888

(16.3)

= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E6 }.
= z6.
= {VE1 , VE2 , VE3 , VE4 , VE5 , VE6 }.
= bz 6 .
892

= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E6 }.
= z6.
= {VE1 , VE2 , VE3 , VE4 , VE5 , VE6 }.
= bz 6 .
896

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {Ei }12
i=1 .
= z 12 .
= {VEi }12
i=1 .
= bz 12 .
900

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {VEINTERNAL
i
SuperHyperVERTICES 10
}i=1 .
= bz 10 .
904

(16.3)

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z2.
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
908

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {Ei }5i=2 .
= z4.
= {VEi }5i=2 .
= bz 4 .
912
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 913
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 914
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 915
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 916
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 917
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 918
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 919
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 920
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 921
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor minus all Neutrosophic 922
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 923
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 924
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor, minus all 925
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 926
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-Neighbor is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 927
R-Stable-Neighbor is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 928
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 929
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 930
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 931
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor in some 932
cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 933
Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic 934
SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor. 935
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Stable-Neighbor 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-Neighbor with the least Neutrosophic 936
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 937
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 938
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 939
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−N eighbor = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−N eighbor = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Stable-Neighbor. In other words, the least cardinality, the 940
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Stable-Neighbor is 941
the cardinality of 942
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−N eighbor = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−N eighbor = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP 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-Neighbor 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-Neighbor. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp

bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor 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-Neighbor.
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 943
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 944
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 945
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 946
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 947
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 948
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 949
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 950
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor 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-Neighbor. 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-Neighbor has the Neutrosophic cardinality
of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor 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-Neighbor 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-Neighbor” 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-Neighbor 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-Neighbor for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used 951
Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case and the 952
common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific Neutrosophic 953
SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are Neutrosophic 954
free-quasi-triangle. 955
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-Neighbor. Those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Neutrosophic style-R-Stable-Neighbor.
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-Neighbor is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor 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 R-Stable-Neighbor. Let

E
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, 956
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
957
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor,
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-Neighbor is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 958
R-Stable-Neighbor is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 959
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 960
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 961
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 962
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor in 963
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 964
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 965
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor. 966
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 967
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 968
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 969
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 970
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 971
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 972
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 973
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 974
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 975
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 976
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 977
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor where the 978
Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, 979
a Neutrosophic embedded R-Stable-Neighbor. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 980
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 981
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 982
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 983
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. 984
The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are included in the 985
minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor. The 986
interior types of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the 987
Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior 988
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more 989
formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any 990
distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic 991
R-Stable-Neighbor. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only 992
in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with 993
the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 994
In the embedded Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor, there’s the usage of exterior 995
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 996
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 997
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 998
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 999
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1000
R-Stable-Neighbor. The Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor with the exclusion of the 1001
exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1002
and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor with the inclusion of all 1003
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, is a 1004
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1005
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic 1006
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct 1007
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Neutrosophic 1008
quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them 1009
but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Neutrosophic 1010
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic 1011
SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor, minus all 1012
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1013
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor has two titles. a 1014
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1015
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1016
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor with that 1017
quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 1018
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1019
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1020
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbors for all Neutrosophic 1021
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1022
Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1023
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor, again and more in the operations of collecting 1024
all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbors acted on the all possible used formations 1025
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic number. This 1026
Neutrosophic number is 1027
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Stable-Neighbors. 1028
Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and GNeutrosophic Stable-Neighbor be a 1029
Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic 1030
Stable-Neighbor. Then 1031
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Stable-Neighbor ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor is 1032
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1033
GNeutrosophic Stable-Neighbor ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1034
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor. 1035
GNeutrosophic Stable-Neighbor =
{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 1036
Stable-Neighbor poses the upcoming expressions. 1037
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1038
= max zNeutrosophic Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1039

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1040


1041
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1042

1043

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1044
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1045
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1046
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1047
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Stable-Neighbor” but, precisely, it’s the 1048
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Stable-Neighbor” since “Neutrosophic 1049
Quasi-Stable-Neighbor” happens “Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor” in a Neutrosophic 1050
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “Neutrosophic 1051
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor” in a 1052
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background 1053
since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise 1054
from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, 1055
“Neutrosophic Quasi-Stable-Neighbor”, and “Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor” are up. 1056
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1057
GNeutrosophic Stable-Neighbor be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1058
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor and the new terms are 1059
up. 1060

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1061
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1062
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1063
And with go back to initial structure, 1064


1065
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1066

1067

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1068
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor 1069
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1070
some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic 1071
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic 1072
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1073
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1074
are coming up. 1075
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor 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-Neighbor 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-Neighbor is up. The obvious
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor 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-Neighbor 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-Neighbor. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor and it’s an Neutrosophic
Stable-Neighbor. Since it’s the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s
no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
instead of all given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
Stable-Neighbor. There isn’t only less than two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor,
is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Stable-Neighbor, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1076
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1077
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1078
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1079
“Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor” 1080
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1081
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor, 1082
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-Neighbor amid those
obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor,
are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1083
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor is the cardinality
of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1084
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1085
quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic 1086
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1087
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all 1088
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1089
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1090
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1091
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1092
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1093
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1094
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1095
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1096
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1097
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1098
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1099
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1100
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1101
R-Stable-Neighbor. Since it doesn’t have the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality 1102
of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 1103
there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1104
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} 1105
is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1106
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor. Since 1107
it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic 1108
SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at 1109
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the 1110
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic 1111
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic 1112
SuperHyperVertex in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the 1113
Neutrosophic procedure”.]. There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside 1114
the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic 1115
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor, VESHE 1116
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1117
R-Stable-Neighbor, VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only 1118
all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are 1119
titled Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic 1120
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1121
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1122
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1123
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1124
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1125
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1126
Neutrosophic R-Stable-Neighbor only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1127
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1128
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1129
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1130
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1131
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1132
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1133
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Stable-Neighbor, is up. There’s neither empty 1134
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1135
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1136
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor. The 1137
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1138
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−N eighbor

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Stable−N eighbor = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor. 1139
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1140
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1141

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1142
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1143
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1144
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Neutrosophic 1145
SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an 1146
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are not 1147
only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1148
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor is up. The obvious 1149
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor is a 1150
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1151
But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1152

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1154
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1155
Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1156
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1157

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1158
Stable-Neighbor. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1159

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1161
ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 1162
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 1163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1164
called the Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor and it’s an Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor. 1165
Since it’s the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic 1166
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that 1167
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is 1168
common and there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic 1169
SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic 1170
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1171

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor, 1172

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1173
Stable-Neighbor, not: 1174

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1175

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1176
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1177
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1178
“Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor” 1179
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1180
Neutrosophic Stable-Neighbor, 1181
is only and only 1182

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1183
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1184
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1185
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1186
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1187
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1188
Then 1189

|E |
= {Ei }i=1N SHG .
= z |EN SHG | .
|E |
= {VEi }i=1N SHG .
= bz |EN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1190
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1191
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 1192
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1193
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 1194
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. The 1195
latter is straightforward. 1196
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1197
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1198
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1199
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1200
Then 1201

|E |
= {Ei }i=1N SHG .
= z |EN SHG | .
|E |
= {VEi }i=1N SHG .
= bz |EN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1202
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Example (16.5)
1203
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 1204
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1205

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1209
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1210
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1211
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1213
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

Then 1214

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
|E |
= {VEi }i=1N SHG .
= bz |EN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1215
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1216
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1217
There’s a new way to redefine as 1218

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1222
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1223
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1224
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1225
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1226
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1228
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1229

= {}
= 0z 0 .
= {{One From Every MATCHING SuperHyperVertices},
= {}
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1230
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1231
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 1232
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1233

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1236
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1237
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1238
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1239
the 1240
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperStable-Neighbor taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1241
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1242
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1243
solution 1244
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1245
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1246
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1247
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1248
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1249
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1250
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1251
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1252
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1253

= {}
= 0z 0 .
= {}
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1254
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
1255
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1257

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1260
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1261
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus 1262
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1263
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1264
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1265
solution 1267
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1269
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1270
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1271
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1272
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1273
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1274
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1275
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1276
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1277

= {}
= 0z 0 .
= {}
= 0z 0 .
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Example (16.13)
Proof. Let 1278
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1279
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1281

latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Thus 1284
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1285
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor could be applied. The unique embedded 1286
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor proposes some longest SuperHyperStable-Neighbor excerpt 1287
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1288
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1290
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1291
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1292
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1293
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1295
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1296
For the SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and the 1297
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, some general results are introduced. 1298
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is 1299
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1300
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Then 1301
N eutrosophic SuperHyperStable − N eighbor =

{theSuperHyperStable − N eighborof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperStable − N eighbor
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperStable−N eighbor. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1302
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1303
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1304
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1305
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and 1306
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor coincide. 1307
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1309
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if and only if it’s a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1310
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1312
strongest SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if and only if it’s a longest 1313
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1315
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor 1316
is its SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and reversely. 1317
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 1318
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1319
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1320
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is its SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and reversely. 1321
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1322
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1323
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor isn’t well-defined. 1324
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1325
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1326
Corollary 6.10. Assume a Neutrosophic 1328
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1330
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1331
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1333
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStable-Neighbor 1334
is well-defined. 1335
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1336
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is well-defined if and only if its 1337
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is well-defined. 1338
Corollary 6.13. Assume a Neutrosophic 1339
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1341
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStable-Neighbor 1342
is well-defined. 1343
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1344
is 1345
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1346
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1347
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1348
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1349
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1350
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1351
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1352
∅ is 1353
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1354
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1355
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1356
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1357
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1358
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1359
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1360
independent SuperHyperSet is 1361
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1362
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1363
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1364
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1365
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1366
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1367
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1368
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1369
maximal 1370
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1371
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1372
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1373
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1374
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1375
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1376
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1377
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1378
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1379
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1380
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1381
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1382
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1383
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1384
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1385
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1386
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1388
number of 1389
(i) : the SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1390
(ii) : the SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1391
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1392
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1393
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1394
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1395
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1396
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1397
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1399
(i) : the dual SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1400
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1401
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1402
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1403
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1404
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1405
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1406
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1409
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1410
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1411
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1412
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1416
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1417
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1418
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1421
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1422
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1423
is a 1424
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1428
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1429
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1430
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1433
number of 1434
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1438
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1439
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1440
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1441
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1442
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1443
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1445
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1446
(iv) : SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1450
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1451
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1452
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1453
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1454
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1455
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1456
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1457
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1461
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1463
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1465
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1466
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1470
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1471
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1472
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1474
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1476
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1477
of a dual 1478
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1482
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1483
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1484
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1486
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1487
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1488
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1494
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1495
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1496
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1497
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1498
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1499
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1500
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1501
such that 1502
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1503
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1504
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1505
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then 1506
(i) S is SuperHyperStable-Neighbor set; 1507
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1508
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1509
Then 1510
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1511
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1512
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1513
which is connected. Then 1514
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1515
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1516
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1517
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1518
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1520
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1521
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1522
a dual SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1523
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1524
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1525
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1527
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1528
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1529
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1530
dual SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1531
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Then 1532
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1533
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1535
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1536
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1537
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1538
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Then 1540
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1541
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1543
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1544
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1545
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1547
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1548
(ii) Γ = 1; 1549
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1550
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1551
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1552
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1553
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1554
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1555
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1556
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1557
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1558
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1559
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1560
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1562
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1563
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1564
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1566
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1567
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1569

bnc ; 1570
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1571
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1573
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1574
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1575
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor for N SHF; 1576
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1577
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1578
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1579
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor for N SHF : (V, E). 1580
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1581
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1582
SuperHyperSet. Then 1583
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1584
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor for N SHF; 1585
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1586
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1587
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1588
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1590
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1591
SuperHyperSet. Then 1592
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1593
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor for N SHF : (V, E); 1594
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1595

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1596
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1597
Then following statements hold; 1600
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1601
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then S is an 1602
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1603
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1604
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then S is a dual 1605
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1606
Then following statements hold; 1608
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1609
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then S is an 1610
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1611
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1612
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then S is a dual 1613
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1614
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1615
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1616
statements hold; 1617
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1618
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1619
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1620
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1622
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1624
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1625
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1626
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1627
statements hold; 1628
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1629
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1631
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1633
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1635
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1636
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1638
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1639
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1640
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1642
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1644
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1647
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1649
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1650
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| <b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1651
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1653
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1655
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1656
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1658
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1660
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Then following statements hold; 1661
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1662
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1664
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1666
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1669
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1671
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Then following statements hold; 1672
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1673
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1675
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1677
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1680
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1681
Neutrosophic Recognition 1682
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1683
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1684
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1685
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1686
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1687
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1688
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1689
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1690
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1691
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1692
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1693
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1694
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1695
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1696
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1697
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1698
happened and what’s done. 1699
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1700
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1701
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1702
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1703
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, 1704
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1705
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor or the Neutrosophic 1706
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 1707
SuperHyperModels. 1708
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1709
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1710
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1711
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1712
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1713
featured. 1714
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1715
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1716
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1717
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1718
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1719
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1721
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1722
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1723
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1724
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1725
Neutrosophic featured. 1726
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1727
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1728
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1729
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1730
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1731
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1733
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1734
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1735
The SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor 1736
are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1737
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1738
recognitions? 1739
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1740
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor? 1741
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1742
compute them? 1743
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1744
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor? 1745
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and the Neutrosophic 1746
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1747
they’re based on SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, are there else? 1748
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1749
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1750
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1751
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1752
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1753
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1754
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1755
highlighted. 1756
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1757
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1758
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition 1759
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. 1760
Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1761
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, finds the convenient 1762
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1763
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1764
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1765
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1766
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1767
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1768
the SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. The 1769
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1770
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1771
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1772
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1773
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1774
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1775
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1776
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1777
formally called “ SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1778
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1779
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperStable-Neighbor
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1780
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1781
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1782
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1783
Forms 1784
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1785
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1789
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1790
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1791
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1792
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1793
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1794
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1795
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1796
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1797
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1798
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1799
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1800
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1801
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1802
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1805
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1807
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1808
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1809
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1810
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1812
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1813
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1816
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1817
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1820
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1821
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1822
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1823
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1826
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1827
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1828
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1829
Extreme coefficient; 1830
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1831
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1832
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1834
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1835
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1836
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1840
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1841
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1842
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 1847
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1849
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1850
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1854
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1857
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1858
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1863
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1864
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1866
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1868
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1877
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1878
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1882
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1883
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1884
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1885
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1886
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1887
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1888
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1889
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
SuperHyperDuality. 1898


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 1961
ESHP : (V, E). Then 1962
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 1963
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 1967
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1971
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1972
ESHC : (V, E). Then 1973
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 1974
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 1985
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 1986
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1996
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 1999
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 2004
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2005
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2006
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2007
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2008
solution 2011
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2018

= {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 2021
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2022

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2028
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2033
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2041
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 2044
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 2045
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2046

∃!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 2051
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2052
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2059
Forms 2061
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2062
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2066
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2067
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2068
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2069
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2071
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2072
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2073
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2074
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2076
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2077
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2078
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2079
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2082
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2083
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2084
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 2085
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2086
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2089
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2090
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2092
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2093
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2097
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2098
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2099
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2100
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2101
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2106
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2108
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2111
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2112
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2113
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2117
coefficient; 2118
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2119
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2122
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2123
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2124
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2126
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2127
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2134
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2135
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2143
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2145
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2151
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2154
coefficient. 2155
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2159
SuperHyperJoin. 2167
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 2241
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2245
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2249

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

.
Proof. Let 2252
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2263
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 2264

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2274
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 2277
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 2282
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2283
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2284
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2286
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2287
solution 2289
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2296

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 2299
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2300

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2304
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2305
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2306
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2311
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2319

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

.
Proof. Let 2322
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2323

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2327
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2328
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2329
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2330
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2337
Forms 2339
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2340
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2344
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2345
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2346
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2347
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2349
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2350
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2351
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2352
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2354
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2355
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2356
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2357
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2360
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2362
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2365
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2367
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2368
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2375
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2376
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2377
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2378
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2384
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2386
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2387
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2395
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2397
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2402
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2404
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2405
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2412
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2413
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2421
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2423
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2432
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2437
SuperHyperPerfect. 2445
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 2519
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2523
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2527
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 2530
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2541
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2542

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2552
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 2555
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 2560
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2561
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2562
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2563
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2564
solution 2567
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2574

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 2577
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2578

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2582
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2583
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2584
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2589
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2597
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2600

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2601

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2605
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2606
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2607
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2615
Forms 2617
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2618
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2622
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2623
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2624
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2625
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2627
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2628
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2629
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2630
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2632
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2633
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2634
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2635
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2638
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2640
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2645
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2646
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2648
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2653
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2654
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2655
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2662
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2664
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2673
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2675
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2680
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2682
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2683
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2690
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2691
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2699
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2701
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2707
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2710
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2715
SuperHyperTotal. 2723
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 2797
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2801
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2805
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 2808
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 2819
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 2820
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2830
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 2833
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2838
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2839
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2842
solution 2845
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2852

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 2855
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2856

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2860
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2861
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2867
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2875
∗
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 2878
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2879

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2883
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2884
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2885
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2893
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2894
Forms 2895
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2896
SuperHyperConnected). 2897
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2901
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2902
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2903
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2904
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2905
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2906
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2908
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2909
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2910
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2911
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2912
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2913
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2915
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2916
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2917
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2918
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2921
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2923
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2924
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2925
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2926
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2928
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2929
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2932
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2933
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2936
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2937
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2938
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2939
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2940
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2941
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2942
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2943
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2944
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2945
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2946
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2947
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2948
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2949
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2950
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2953
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2956
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2957
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2958
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2961
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2962
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2963
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2965
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2966
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2969
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2970
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2973
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2974
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2977
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 2980
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2983
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2985
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2988
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2991
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2994
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 2995
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2999
SuperHyperConnected. 3007
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 3081
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 3085
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3089
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 3092
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 3103
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 3104
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3114
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 3117
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3122
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3123
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3126
solution 3129
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3136
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 3139
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3144
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3145
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3151
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3159
∗
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 3162
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3164

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3167
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3168
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3169
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3170
17 Background 3178
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3179
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them date back on March 09, 3180
2023. 3181
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3182
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3183
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3184
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3185
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3186
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3187
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3188
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3189
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3190
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3191
results based on initial background. 3192
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3193
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3194
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3195
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3196
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3197
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3198
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3199
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3200
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3201
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3202
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3203
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3204
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3205
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3206
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3207
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3208
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3209
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3210
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3211
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3212
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3213
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3214
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3215
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3216
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3217
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3218
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 3219
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3220
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3221
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3222
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3223
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 3224
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3225
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3226
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3227
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3228
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3229
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 3230
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3231
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3232
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3233
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3234
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3235
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3236
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3237
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3238
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3239
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 3240
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3241
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3242
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 3243
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 3244
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3245
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 3246
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3247
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3248
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3249
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 3250
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3251
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3252
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3253
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3254
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3255
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3256
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3257
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3258
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 3259
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3260
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 3261
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3262
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3263
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3264
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3265
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 3266
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3267
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [102] by Henry Garrett 3268
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3269
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3270
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [103] by Henry Garrett 3271
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3272
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3273
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [104] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3274
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3275
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3276
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [105] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3277
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3278
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [108] by 3279
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3280
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3281
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [109] by Henry 3282
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3283
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3284
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [112] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3285
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3286
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [115] by Henry 3287
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3288
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3289
in Ref. [116] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3290
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3291
Ref. [117] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3292
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3293
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [118] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3294
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3295
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [119] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3296
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3297
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3298
in Ref. [120] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3299
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3300
in Ref. [131] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3301
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3302
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [132] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3303
and [4–57, 59–132], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions 3304
about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 3305
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3306
proposed as book in Ref. [133] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 3307
Scholar and has more than 3230 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3308
Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st 3309
Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different 3310
types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3311
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3312
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3313
proposed as book in Ref. [134] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 3314
Scholar and has more than 4117 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3315
and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell 3316
Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different 3317
types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of 3318
duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This 3319
research book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3320
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3321
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3322
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3323
framework of notions In SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions In 3324
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory 3325
at [4–57, 59–132]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3326
readers, 3230 and 4117 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [133, 134]. 3327
References 3328
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3329
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3330
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3331
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3332
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3333
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3334
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3335
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3336
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3337
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3338
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3339
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3340
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3341
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3342
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3343
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3344
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3345
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3346
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3347
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3348
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3349
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3350
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3351
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3352
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3353
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3354
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3355
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3356
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3357
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3358
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3359
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3360
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3361
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3362
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3363
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3364
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3365
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3366
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3367
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3368
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3369
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3370
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3371
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3372
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3373
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3374
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3375
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3376
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3377
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3378
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3379
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3380
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3381
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3382
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3383
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3384
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3385
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3386
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3387
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3388
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3389
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3391
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3392
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3393
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3394
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3395
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3396
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3398
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3402
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3403
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3404
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3405
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3406
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3407
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3408
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3409
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3410
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3411
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3412
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3413
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3414
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3415
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3416
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3417
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3418
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3419
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3420
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3421
24. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3422
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3423
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23423.28327). 3424
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3425
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3426
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28456.44805). 3427
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3429
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3431
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3432
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3433
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3435
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3437
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3438
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3441
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3442
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3443
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3444
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3447
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3449
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3451
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3453
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3454
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3456
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3458
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3460
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3462
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3463
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3464
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3465
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3466
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3468
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3469
40. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3470
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3471
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3474
42. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3476
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3477
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3480
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3481
44. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3482
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3483
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3486
46. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3488
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3490
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3492
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3493
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3494
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3495
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3498
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3499
50. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3500
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3501
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3504
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3505
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3506
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3507
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3510
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3511
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3512
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3513
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3516
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3517
56. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3518
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3519
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3522
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3523
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3524
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3525
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3527
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3528
60. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3530
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3531
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3534
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3535
62. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3536
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3537
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3540
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3541
64. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3542
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3543
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3546
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3548
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3549
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3552
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3553
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3554
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3555
69. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3557
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3558
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3561
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3562
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3564
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3566
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3567
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3569
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3570
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3572
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3573
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3574
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3575
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3576
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3577
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3578
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3579
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3581
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3582
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3583
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3584
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3585
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3586
79. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3587
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3588
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3589
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3590
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3593
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3594
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3597
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3598
82. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3599
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3601
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3602
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3605
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3606
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3609
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3610
85. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3611
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3612
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3613
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3614
86. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3615
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3616
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3617
87. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3618
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3619
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3620
88. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3621
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3622
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3623
89. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3624
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3625
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3626
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3627
90. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3628
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3629
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3630
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3631
91. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3632
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3633
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3634
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3635
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3636
92. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3637
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3638
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3639
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3640
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3641
93. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3642
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3643
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3644
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3645
94. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3646
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3647
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3648
95. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3649
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3650
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3652
96. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3653
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3654
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3655
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3656
97. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3657
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3658
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3659
98. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3660
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3661
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3662
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3663
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3664
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3665
99. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3666
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3667
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3668
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3669
100. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3670
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3671
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3672
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3673
101. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3674
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3675
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3676
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3677
102. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3678
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3679
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3680
103. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3681
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3682
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3683
104. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3685
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3686
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3687
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3688
105. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3689
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3690
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3691
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3692
106. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3693
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3694
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3695
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3696
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3698
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3699
108. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3700
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3701
109. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3703
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3704
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3705
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3710
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3714
112. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3715
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3716
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3717
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3718
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3721
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3723
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3724
115. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3725
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3726
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3729
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3730
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3732
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3733
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3736
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3737
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3739
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3740
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3743
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3744
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3746
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3747
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3749
123. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3751
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3754
124. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3756
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3759
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3766
127. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3767
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3768
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3769
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3770
128. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3771
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3772
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3773
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3774
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3777
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3778
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3781
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3782
131. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3783
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3784
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3785
132. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3786
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3787
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3788
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3789
133. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3790
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3791
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3792
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3793
134. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3794
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3795
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3796
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3797
View publication stats

New Ideas in Cancer's Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous

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-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous

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

373 PUBLICATIONS 6,374 CITATIONS

Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 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-Neighbor). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 10

a Stable-Neighbor 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-Neighbor if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 14

∀Ei ∈ E 0 : N (Ei )is Stable;

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 16

∀Ei ∈ E 0 : N (Ei )is Stable;

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

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

v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 19

∀Vi ∈ V 0 : N (Vi )is Stable;

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 21

∀Vi ∈ V 0 : N (Vi )is Stable;

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

SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 23

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 24

v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 25

((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable-Neighbor). Assume a Neutrosophic 26

SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 27

SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 28

SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 29

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 30

v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and 31

cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 33

SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 34

SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of 36

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 37

re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and 38

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 39

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 40

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 41

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 42

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 43

SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor 44

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 45

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 46

v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and 47

C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 48

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 49

number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 50

Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 51

SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 53

coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 54

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 55

re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and 56

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 57

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 58

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 59