New Ideas On Super Nebulizer by Hyper Nub of Stable-Neighbor in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369284173
New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of Stable-Neighbor In Cancer's

Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · March 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17184.25602
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
374 PUBLICATIONS 6,419 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic Graphs View project
Featured Articles 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 On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 2
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
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 “Extreme 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 “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 248
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 Extreme 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
Extreme 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
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, 271
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 272
either the optimal SuperHyperStable-Neighbor or the Extreme 273
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results 274
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath 275
s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 276
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. There isn’t 277
any formation of any SuperHyperStable-Neighbor but literarily, it’s the deformation of 278
any SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 279
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 280
find the “ amount of SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” of either individual of cells or the 281
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 282
of SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 283
group of cells? 284
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 285
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 286
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 287
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 288
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” and “Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” on 289
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 290
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 291
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 292
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 293
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 294
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 295
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 296
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 297
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 298
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 299
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 300
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 301
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and 302
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, are figured out in sections “ 303
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” and “Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”. In the sense 304
of tackling on getting results and in Stable-Neighbor to make sense about continuing 305
the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are 306
introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out 307
to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 308
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there 309
are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 310
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 311
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The 312
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 313
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 314
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 315
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 316
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”, “Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”, “Results on 317
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 318
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 319
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 320
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”. 321
The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 322
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 323
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 324
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 325
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 326
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 327
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 328
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 329
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 330
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 331
Research On the Redeemed Ways 332
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 333
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [131],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 334
Set](Ref. [131],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 335
(NSHG)](Ref. [131],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 336
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [131], 337
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 338
(NSHG)](Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 339
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [131],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 340
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [131],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 341
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [131]. 342
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 343
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 344
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [131],Definition 2.1,p.1). 345
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 346
+
]− 0, 1 [. 347
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [131],Definition 2.2,p.2). 348
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. [131],Definition 349
2.5,p.2). 350
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 351
pair S = (V, E), where 352
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 353
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 354
1, 2, . . . , n); 355
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 356
V; 357
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 358
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 359
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 360
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 361
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 362
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );
P
(viii) i0 363
(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 . 364
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 365
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 366
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 367
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 368
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 369
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 370
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 371
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 372
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 373
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 374
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 375
(Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3). 376
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 377
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 378
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 379
characterized as follow-up items. 380
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 381
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 382
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 383
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 384
HyperEdge; 385
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 386
SuperEdge; 387
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 388
SuperHyperEdge. 389
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 390
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 391
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [131], Definition 2.7, p.3). 392
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 393
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 394
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 395
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 396
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 397
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 398
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)). 399
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 400
pair S = (V, E), where 401
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 402
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 403
1, 2, . . . , n); 404
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 405
V; 406
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 407
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 408
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 409
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 410
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 411
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 412
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 413
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 414
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 415
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 416
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 417
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 418
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 419
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 420
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 421
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 422
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 423
(Ref. [131],Definition 2.7,p.3). 424
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 425
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 426
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 427
characterized as follow-up items. 428
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 429
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 430
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 431
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 432
HyperEdge; 433
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 434
SuperEdge; 435
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 436
SuperHyperEdge. 437
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 438
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 439
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 440
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 441
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 442
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 443
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 444
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 445
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 446
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 447
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 448
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 449
given SuperHyperEdges; 450
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 451
SuperHyperEdges; 452
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 453
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 454
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 455
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 456
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 457
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 458
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 459
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 460
common SuperVertex. 461
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 462
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 463
of following conditions hold: 464
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 465
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 466
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 467
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 468
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 469
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 470
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 471
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 473
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 474
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 475
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. 476
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 477
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 478
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 479
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 480
SuperHyperPath . 481
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 482
(Ref. [131],Definition 5.3,p.7). 483
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 484
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 485
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 486
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 487
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 488
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 489
(NSHE)). (Ref. [131],Definition 5.4,p.7). 490
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 491
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 492
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 493
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 494
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 495
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 496
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 497
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 499
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 500
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 502
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 503
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 504
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 505
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 506
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor). 507
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 509
either V 0 or E 0 is called 510
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the following expression is 511
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 512
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the following expression is 513
called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 514
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 515
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the following expression is 516
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 517
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor f the following expression is 518
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor criteria holds 519
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 520
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 521
rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 524
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable-Neighbor). 525
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 527
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 528
rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 531
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 532
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 533
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 534
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 535
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 536
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 537
rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 540
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 541
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 542
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 546
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 547
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 550
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 551
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 552
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 553
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 554
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 555
its Extreme coefficient; 556
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if 557
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 558
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 561
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 562
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 563
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 564
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 565
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Neutrosophic 566
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 567
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 568
rv-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 571
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 573
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 574
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if it’s either of 577
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 581
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 582
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if 586
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 592
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 595
its Extreme coefficient; 596
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if 597
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 601
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 602
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 603
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 604
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 605
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; and the Neutrosophic 606
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 607
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperStable-Neighbor). 608
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 609
(i) an δ−SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 610
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor such that either of the following expressions hold for 611
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 612
|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 613
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 614
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is a Neutrosophic kind of 615
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor such that either of the following 616
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 617
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 618
|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. 619
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 620
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 621
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, there’s a need to 622
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 623
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 624
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 625
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 626
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 627
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 628
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 629
understandable. 630
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 631
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 632
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 633
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 634
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 635
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 636
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 637
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 638
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 639
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 640
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor more Neutrosophicly understandable. 641
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, there’s a need to 642
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor”. The 643
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 644
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 645
assign to the values. 646
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. It’s redefined a 647
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if the Table (3) holds. 648

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor But As 649
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 650
Forms 651
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 652
Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 653
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is called 654
Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called Extreme 655
event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 656
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 657
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 659
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 660
s-independent criteria 661
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 662
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 663
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 664
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Any k-function Stable-Neighbor like E is 666
called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Stable-Neighbor like E is 667
called Extreme Variable. 668
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 669
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 670
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. A Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 672
called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 673
Expectation criteria 674
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 675
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. A Extreme number is called Extreme 677
Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 678
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 679
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let m and n propose special 680
Stable-Neighbor. Then with m ≥ 4n, 681
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a Extreme 682
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 683
independently with probability Stable-Neighbor p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 684
H := G[S]. 685
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

SuperHyperVertices, Y the Extreme number of SuperHyperEdges, and Z the Extreme
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 Extreme 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: 686
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
687
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 688
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 689
points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the plane 690
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 691
Proof. Form a Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P 692
whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive points on the 693
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 694
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 695
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 696
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 697
2 3
l < 32n /k . 698
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 700
points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 701
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 702
Proof. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 703
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Draw a SuperHyperUnit SuperHyperCircle 704
around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme numberP of these 705
SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0n−1 ni = n and 706
k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
707
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 708
between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass 709
through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 710
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 711
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 712
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 713
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 714
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 715
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 716
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 717
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 718
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let X be a 719
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 720
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. 721
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 722
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let Xn be a nonnegative 723
integer-valued variable in a probability Stable-Neighbor (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 724
as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 725
Proof. 726
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. A special SuperHyperGraph in 728
Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 729
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. 731
Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, 732
where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 733
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 734
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 735
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 736
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 737
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 738
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 739
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: 740
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 741
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 742
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 743
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 744
n → ∞. Consequently, a Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 745
number at most k. 746
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 747
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. A Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 749
called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme Variance 750
criteria 751
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let X be a Extreme Variable and 753
let t be a positive real number. Then 754
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let X be a Extreme Variable and let t be 756
a positive real number. Then 757
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
758
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let Xn be a Extreme Variable in a 760
probability Stable-Neighbor (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), 761
then 762
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 764
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 765
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 766
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set 768
f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 769
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 770
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. As in the proof of related Theorem, the 772
result is straightforward. 773
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f and k ∗ be 775
as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 776
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 777
or 778
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 779
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. The latter is straightforward. 781
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 782
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let P be a monotone property of 784
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 785
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 786
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 787
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 788
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 789
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let F be a fixed Extreme 791
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 792
copy of F as a Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 793
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. Let F be a nonempty balanced 795
Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l SuperHyperEdges. Then 796
n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F as a Extreme 797
SubSuperHyperGraph. 798
S = (V, E) is a probability Stable-Neighbor. The latter is straightforward. 800
Example 4.20. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 801
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 802
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 803
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 804
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 805
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 806
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 807
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 808
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a Extreme 809
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Extreme Example (16.3)
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 810
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 811
C(N SHG)Extreme Stable-Neighbor

= {Ei }3i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Neighbor
= {V3 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
812
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 815
E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 816
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 817
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 818
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 819
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 820
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 821

= {Ei }3i=1 .
= {V3 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
822

straightforward. 825

= {Ei }3i=1 .
= {}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial = 0z 0 .
826

= {Ei }3i=2 .
= {}.
830




= {}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
834

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
838


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
842
C(N SHG)Extreme Stable-Neighbor =

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z3.
= {}.
846




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
850

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z3.
= {}.
854


{E1 }.
= z.
= {}.
858

= {Eii=16 }.
= z6.
= {Vii=4,5,6,9,10 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial =
= z5.
862




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
866

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z2.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Stable-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
870



= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }.
= z5.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 }.
= z6.
874

= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 }.
= z5.
= {VE1 , VE2 , VE3 , VE4 , VE5 , VE6 }.
= bz 6 .
878


= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E6 }.
= z6.
= {VE1 , VE2 , VE3 , VE4 , VE5 , VE6 }.
= bz 6 .
882

= {E1 , E2 , E3 , E4 , E6 }.
= z6.
= {VE1 , VE2 , VE3 , VE4 , VE5 , VE6 }.
= bz 6 .
886




= {Ei }12
i=1 .
= z 12 .
= {VEi }12
i=1 .
= bz 12 .
890

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {VEINTERNAL
i
SuperHyperVERTICES 10
}i=1 .
= bz 10 .
894


= {E1 , E2 }.
= z2.
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
898

= {Ei }5i=2 .
= z4.
= {VEi }5i=2 .
= bz 4 .


902
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 903
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 904
quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme 905
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme 906
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 907
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 908
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 909
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 910
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 911
any given Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 912
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 913
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 914
an Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 915
them but not all of them. 916
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

a Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor is at 917
least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 918
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 919
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 920
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 921
Stable-Neighbor in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 922
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 923
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor. 924
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Stable-Neighbor has, the least Extreme cardinality,
the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme 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 Extreme type-result-R-Stable-Neighbor with the least Extreme cardinality, the 925
lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 926
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 927
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 928
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−N eighbor = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−N eighbor = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Extreme type-result-Stable-Neighbor. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower 929
sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Extreme type-result-Stable-Neighbor is the 930
cardinality of 931
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−N eighbor = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−N eighbor = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor
since neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices
where amount refers to the Extreme number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges)
more than one to form any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of
SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the Extreme 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 Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

propose property such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex of a Extreme
SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme
SuperHyperVertices but the maximum Extreme cardinality indicates that these
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the Extreme lower bound in the term of
Extreme sharpness. In other words, the Extreme 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 Extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme 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 Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme 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 932
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 933
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 934
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 935
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 936
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 937
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 938
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 939
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor decorates the Extreme

SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this Extreme
style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum
Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The
lower Extreme bound is to have the maximum Extreme groups of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices have perfect Extreme connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges
and the outside of this Extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the
connectedness of the used Extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its Extreme
properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no Extreme
connection. Furthermore, the Extreme existence of one Extreme SuperHyperVertex has
no Extreme effect to talk about the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor. Since at least two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the Extreme background of the
Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The Extreme SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no
Extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least two Extreme SuperHyperVertices make the
Extreme version of Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the Extreme setting of
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as Extreme
adjective for the initial Extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no Extreme
appearance of the loop Extreme version of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge and this
Extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The Extreme adjective “loop” on the
basic Extreme framework engages one Extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never happens
in this Extreme setting. With these Extreme bases, on a Extreme SuperHyperGraph,
there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least a Extreme
R-Stable-Neighbor has the Extreme cardinality of a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a
Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor has the Extreme cardinality at least a Extreme

SuperHyperEdge. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This Extreme
SuperHyperSet isn’t a Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor since either the Extreme
SuperHyperGraph is an obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since
there’s no Extreme usage of this Extreme framework and even more there’s no Extreme
connection inside or the Extreme SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its
consequences, there’s a Extreme contradiction with the term “Extreme
R-Stable-Neighbor” since the maximum Extreme cardinality never happens for this
Extreme style of the Extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no Extreme
connection inside as mentioned in first Extreme case in the forms of drawback for this
selected Extreme SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This Extreme case implies having the Extreme style of on-quasi-triangle
Extreme style on the every Extreme elements of this Extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely,
the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor is the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that some Extreme amount of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle Extreme style. The Extreme cardinality of the
v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Extreme SuperHyperSet
But the lower Extreme bound is up. Thus the minimum Extreme cardinality of the
maximum Extreme cardinality ends up the Extreme discussion. The first Extreme term
refers to the Extreme setting of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph but this key point is
enough since there’s a Extreme SuperHyperClass of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph has
no on-quasi-triangle Extreme style amid some amount of its Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. This Extreme setting of the Extreme SuperHyperModel proposes a
Extreme SuperHyperSet has only some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices from one
Extreme SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Extreme amount of Extreme
SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. The Extreme cardinality of this Extreme SuperHyperSet is the
maximum and the Extreme case is occurred in the minimum Extreme situation. To sum
them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Extreme cardinality such that
Contains some Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is a Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used Extreme 940
background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common theme of the 941
lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 942
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 943
Assume a Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of the

Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every Extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least no
Extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those Extreme
SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in a Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor.
Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Extreme
style-R-Stable-Neighbor. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme 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
Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 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 Extreme SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and only
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Extreme SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor but with
slightly differences in the maximum Extreme cardinality amid those Extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the Extreme
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Extreme cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor. Let

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
Extreme 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, 944
Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
945
Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor where E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in a Extreme Stable-Neighbor, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could
be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
R-Stable-Neighbor is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor is 946
at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 947
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 948
other words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 949
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 950
Stable-Neighbor in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 951
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 952
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor. 953
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 954
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 955
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 956
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 957
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 958
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 959
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 960
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 961
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 962
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 963
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor where 964
the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, a 965
Extreme embedded R-Stable-Neighbor. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 966
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 967
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 968
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 969
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less 970
than two distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum 971
Extreme style of the embedded Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor. The interior types of the 972
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of 973
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 974
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 975
inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme 976
SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor. Thus Extreme exterior 977
SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in 978
Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that 979
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme Stable-Neighbor, there’s the 980
usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside 981
more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. 982
One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme 983
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has 984
been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme 985
R-Stable-Neighbor. The Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor with the exclusion of the exclusion 986
of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other 987
terms, the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor with the inclusion of all Extreme 988
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is a Extreme 989
quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme 990
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 991
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 992
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor minus all 993
Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 994
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 995
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor, minus all 996
Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 997
The main definition of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor has two titles. a Extreme 998
quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 999
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1000
number, there’s a Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor with that quasi-maximum Extreme 1001
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If 1002
there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the Extreme 1003
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1004
quasi-R-Stable-Neighbors for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme corresponded 1005
maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Stable-Neighbor ends up but this 1006
essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor, again and more 1007
in the operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Neighbors acted on the all 1008
possible used formations of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme 1009
number. This Extreme number is 1010
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Stable-Neighbors. 1011
Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Stable-Neighbor be a Extreme 1012
number, a Extreme SuperHyperSet and a Extreme Stable-Neighbor. Then 1013
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Stable-Neighbor ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Stable-Neighbor is 1014
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1015
GExtreme Stable-Neighbor ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1016
technical definition for the Extreme Stable-Neighbor. 1017
GExtreme Stable-Neighbor =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1018
Stable-Neighbor poses the upcoming expressions. 1019
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1020
= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1021

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1022


1023
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1024

1025

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1026
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1027
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1028
incident to a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1029
Quasi-Stable-Neighbor” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1030
Quasi-Stable-Neighbor” since “Extreme Quasi-Stable-Neighbor” happens “Extreme 1031
Stable-Neighbor” in a Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background 1032
but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme Stable-Neighbor” 1033
in a Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since 1034
there are some ambiguities about the Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To 1035
get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme 1036
Quasi-Stable-Neighbor”, and “Extreme Stable-Neighbor” are up. 1037
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and GExtreme Stable-Neighbor 1038
be a Extreme number, a Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Extreme 1039
Stable-Neighbor and the new terms are up. 1040

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1041
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1042
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1043
And with go back to initial structure, 1044


1045
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1046

1047

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1048
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor if for any 1049
of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1050
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1051
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1052
them. 1053
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1054
are coming up. 1055
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,

Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor. The

Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E) is a Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum Extreme cardinality of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some
Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by Extreme Stable-Neighbor is
related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme Stable-Neighbor is up. The obvious
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Stable-Neighbor is a Extreme
SuperHyperSet includes only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex. But the Extreme
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor is
up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

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

Stable-Neighbor, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1056
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1057
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1058
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1059
“Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor” 1060
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1061
Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor, 1062
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also it’s
a Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor amid those obvious
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Stable-Neighbor, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1063
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of a Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1064
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme 1065
quasi-R-Stable-Neighbor if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme 1066
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme 1067
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme 1068
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1069
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a Extreme 1070
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1071
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1072
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1073
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1074
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor with the least 1075
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1076
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1077
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1078
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1079
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor. 1080
Since it doesn’t have the maximum Extreme cardinality of a Extreme 1081
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Extreme 1082
SuperHyperEdge to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme 1083
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum 1084
Extreme cardinality of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but 1085
it isn’t a Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such 1086
that such that there’s a Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme 1087
SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside 1088
implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1089
ESHG : (V, E), a Extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, 1090
to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do 1091
“the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the 1092
intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1093
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor, VESHE is up. 1094
The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor, 1095
VESHE , is a Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme 1096
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1097
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1098
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1099
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of a Extreme 1100
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Extreme 1101
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1102
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Stable-Neighbor 1103
only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1104
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1105
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1106
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1107
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1108
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1109
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Stable-Neighbor, is up. There’s neither empty 1110
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1111
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1112
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Stable-Neighbor. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1113
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1114
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−N eighbor

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Stable−N eighbor = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Stable−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Stable-Neighbor. The 1115
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1116

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Stable-Neighbor C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1117
ESHG : (V, E) is a Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1118
the maximum Extreme cardinality of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 1119
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1120
of a Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for 1121
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1122
inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme 1123
Stable-Neighbor is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1124
Extreme Stable-Neighbor is a Extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme 1125
SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1126
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1127

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1128
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1129
Extreme Stable-Neighbor is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1130
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1131

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1132
Stable-Neighbor. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1133
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1134

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme Stable-Neighbor C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1135
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1136
that there’s no a Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices given 1137
by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Stable-Neighbor and it’s an 1138
Extreme Stable-Neighbor. Since it’s the maximum Extreme cardinality of a 1139
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that 1140
there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex of a Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and 1141
there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t 1142
only less than three Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1143
SuperHyperSet, 1144

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Stable-Neighbor, 1145

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1146
Stable-Neighbor, not: 1147

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1148

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1149
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1150
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1151
“Extreme Stable-Neighbor” 1152
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1153
Extreme Stable-Neighbor, 1154
is only and only 1155

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1156
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1157
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1158
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1159
SuperHyperClasses. 1160
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1161

|E |
= {Ei }i=1N SHG .
= z |EN SHG | .
|E |
= {VEi }i=1N SHG .
= bz |EN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1162
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1163
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1164
There’s a new way to redefine as 1165
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 1166
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. The 1167
latter is straightforward. 1168
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1169
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1170
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1171
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1172
Then 1173

|E |
= {Ei }i=1N SHG .
= z |EN SHG | .
|E |
= {VEi }i=1N SHG .
= bz |EN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1174
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1175
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1176

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1181
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1182
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1183
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1184

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
|E |
= {VEi }i=1N SHG .
= bz |EN SHG | .
Proof. Let 1185
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1186
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
Figure 24. a Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1187
a new way to redefine as 1188

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1192
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1193
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1194
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1195
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1196
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1197
Then 1198

= {}
= 0z 0 .
= {{One From Every MATCHING SuperHyperVertices},
= {}
= 0z 0 .
Figure 25. a Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1199
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
1200
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1201

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1205
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1206
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1207
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Example (16.11)
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1208
the 1209
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperStable-Neighbor taken from a connected Extreme 1210
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1211
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1212
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1213
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1214
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1215
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1216
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1217
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1218
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1219
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1220
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1221

= {}
= 0z 0 .
= {}
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1222
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
1223
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 1225

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1228
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1229
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus 1230
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1231
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1232
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1233
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 27. a Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Example (16.13)
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1236
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1237
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1238
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1239
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 1240
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1241
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1242
Then, 1243

= {}
= 0z 0 .
= {}
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1244
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1245
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
Figure 28. a Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in the Extreme Example (16.15)
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1247

latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Thus 1250
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1251
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor could be applied. The unique embedded 1252
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor proposes some longest SuperHyperStable-Neighbor excerpt 1253
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1254
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1255
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1256
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1257
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1258
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1259
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1260
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1261
For the SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, and the 1262
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, some general results are introduced. 1263
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is “redefined” 1264
on the positions of the alphabets. 1265
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Then 1266
Extreme SuperHyperStable − N eighbor =

{theSuperHyperStable − N eighborof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperStable − N eighbor
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperStable−N eighbor. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1267
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1268
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1269
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1270
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and 1271
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor coincide. 1272
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a Extreme 1274
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if and only if it’s a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1275
the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1277
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1278
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1279
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is its 1280
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and reversely. 1281
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, 1282
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1283
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is 1284
its SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and reversely. 1285
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1286
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1287
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor isn’t well-defined. 1288
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1289
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1290
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1293
Then its Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1294
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1296
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStable-Neighbor 1297
is well-defined. 1298
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1299
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is well-defined if and only if its 1300
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is well-defined. 1301
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1303
Then its Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is well-defined if and only if its 1304
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor is well-defined. 1305
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1306
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1307
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1308
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1309
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1310
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1311
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1312
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1313
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1314
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1315
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1316
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1317
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1318
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1319
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1320
independent SuperHyperSet is 1321
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1322
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1323
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1324
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1325
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1326
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1327
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1328
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1329
maximal 1330
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1331
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1332
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1333
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1334
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1335
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1336
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1337
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1338
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1339
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1340
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1341
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1342
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1343
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1344
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1345
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1346
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStable-Neighbor/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1348
number of 1349
(i) : the SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1350
(ii) : the SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1351
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1352
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1353
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1354
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1355
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1356
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1357
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1359
(i) : the dual SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1360
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1361
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1362
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1363
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1364
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1365
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1366
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1369
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1370
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1371
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1372
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1376
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1377
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1378
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1381
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1382
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1383
is a 1384
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1388
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1389
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1390
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1393
number of 1394
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1398
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1399
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1400
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1401
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1402
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1403
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1405
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1406
(iv) : SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1410
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1411
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1412
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1413
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1414
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1415
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1416
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1417
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1421
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1423
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1424
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1425
setting of dual 1426
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1430
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1431
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1432
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1434
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1436
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1437
dual 1438
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1442
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1443
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1444
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1446
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1447
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1448
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1454
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1455
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1456
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1457
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1458
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1459
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such 1460
that 1461
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1462
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1463
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1464
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then 1465
(i) S is SuperHyperStable-Neighbor set; 1466
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1467
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1468
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1469
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1470
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1471
connected. Then 1472
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1473
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1474
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1475
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1476
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1478
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1479
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1480
a dual SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1481
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1482
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1483
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1485
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1486
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1487
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1488
dual SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1489
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Then 1490
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1491
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1493
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1494
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1495
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1496
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Then 1498
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1499
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1501
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1502
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1503
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1505
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1506
(ii) Γ = 1; 1507
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1508
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1509
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1510
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1511
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1512
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1513
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1514
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1515
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1516
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1517
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1518
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1520
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1521
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1522
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1524
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1525
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1527

bnc ; 1528
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1529
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1531
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1532
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1533
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor for N SHF; 1534
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1535
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1536
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1537
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor for N SHF : (V, E). 1538
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1539
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1540
SuperHyperSet. Then 1541
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1542
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor for N SHF; 1543
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1544

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1545
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1546
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1548
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1549
SuperHyperSet. Then 1550
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1551
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor for N SHF : (V, E); 1552
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1553

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1554
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1555
following statements hold; 1558
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1559
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then S is an 1560
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1561
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1562
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then S is a dual 1563
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1564
following statements hold; 1566
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1567
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then S is an 1568
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1569
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1570
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, then S is a dual 1571
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1572
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1573
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1574
hold; 1575
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| <b 2r c

+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1576
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1577
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1578
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1580
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1582
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1583
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1584
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1585
hold; 1586
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1587
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1589
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1591
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1593
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1594
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1596
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1597
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1598
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1600
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1602
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1605
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1607
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1608
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1609
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1611
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1613
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor; 1614
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1616
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1618
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Then following statements hold; 1619
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1620
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1622
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1624
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1627
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1629
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. Then following statements hold; 1630
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1631
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1633
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1635
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1638
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1639
Recognition 1640
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1641
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1642
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1643
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1644
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1645
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1646
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1647
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1648
long-term Extreme function. 1649
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1650
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1651
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1652
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1653
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1654
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1655
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1656
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1657
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1658
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1659
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Extreme 1660
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, 1661
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1662
find either the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor or the Extreme 1663
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1664
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1665
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1666
SuperHyperModel 1667
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1668
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1669
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1670
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1671
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1672
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1673
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1674
the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1675
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1676
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1677
SuperHyperModel 1678
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1679
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1680
Figure 29. a Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

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

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1681
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1682
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1683
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1685
is the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. 1686
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1687
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1688
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1689
The SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor are 1690
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1691
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1692
recognitions? 1693
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1694
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor? 1695
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1696
compute them? 1697
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1698
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor? 1699
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and the Extreme 1700
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1701
they’re based on SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, are there else? 1702
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1703
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1704
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1705
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1706
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1707
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1708
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1709
highlighted. 1710
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1711
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1712
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition 1713
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based 1714
on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 1715
Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, finds the convenient background to implement 1716
some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme 1717
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 1718
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 1719
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1720
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 1721
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1722
SuperHyperStable-Neighbor and the Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor. The 1723
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1724
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1725
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1726
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1727
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1728
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1729
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1730
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1731
formally called “ SuperHyperStable-Neighbor” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1732
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1733
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperStable-Neighbor
3. Extreme SuperHyperStable-Neighbor 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1734
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1735
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1736
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1737
Forms 1738
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1739
Assume a Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 1740
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1741
V 0 or E 0 is called 1742
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1743
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1744
0 0
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E such 1745
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1746
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1747
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1748
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1749
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1750
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1751
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1752
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1753
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1754
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1755
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1756
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1758
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1759
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1760
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1761
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1762
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1763
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1764
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1766
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1767
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1768
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1769
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1770
SuperHyperEdges of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1771
conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1772
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1773
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1774
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1775
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1777
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1779
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1780
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1781
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1782
Extreme coefficient; 1783
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1784
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a 1786
a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1790
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1794
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1799
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1801
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1802
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1806
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1808
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1809
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1810
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1814
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1815
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1819
of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1825
Extreme coefficient. 1828
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1832
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1833
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1834
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1835
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1836
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1838
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Extreme 1841
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1842
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1843
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a 1844
Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every 1845
given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1846


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

C(N SHG)Extreme 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)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E3i+1i=03 }.

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1889
Then 1890
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

= {Ei }i=1 3
.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 3

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1891
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1895
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1899
Then 1901
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1902
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1910
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1911
Then 1912
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1913
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1923
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1924
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1925
C(N SHG)Extreme 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) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1926
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 1931
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1932
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1933
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1934
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1935
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1936
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1944

= {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 |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1947
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1948

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1954
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1965
Then, 1967
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1968
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1969
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1970

∃!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 1975
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1976
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 1978
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1979
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1981
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 1982
Forms 1984
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 1985
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E , ∃Ej ∈ E , such that 1989
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 1990
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1991
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1992
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1994
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 1995
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1996
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 1997
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 1999
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2000
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2001
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2004
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2005
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2006
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2010
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2011
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2013
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2017
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2018
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2019
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2020
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2026
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2028
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme 2030
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of a Extreme 2033
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2036
coefficient; 2037
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2038
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2040
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2044
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2045
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2047
SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2049
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2051
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2052
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2054
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2060
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2062
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme 2064
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme 2067
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2070
coefficient. 2071
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2075
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2076
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2081
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2083
given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2089


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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 4z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E3i+13i=0 , E3i+243i=0 }.

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

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial =
4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = 10z.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2133
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

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

.
Proof. Let 2134
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2138
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2142
Then 2144

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

.
Proof. Let 2145
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2153
Then 2155
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2156

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2166
C(N SHG)Extreme 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 |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2169
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 2174
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2175
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2176
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2178
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2187

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 |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2190
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2191
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2192

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2195
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2196
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2197
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2208
Then, 2210

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

.
Proof. Let 2211
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2212

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2216
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2217
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2218
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2219
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2224
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2225
Forms 2227
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2228
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2232
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2233
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2234
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2235
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2237
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2238
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2239
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2240
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2242
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2243
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2244
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2245
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2248
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2250
SuperHyperPerfect; 2255
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2256
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2258
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2262
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2263
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2264
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2265
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2271
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2273
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a 2275
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2283
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2284
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2288
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2290
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2291
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2292
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2295
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2297
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2298
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2299
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2308
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2321
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2327
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2335


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2379
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2380
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2384
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2388
Then 2390
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2391
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2399
Then 2401
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2402

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2412
C(N SHG)Extreme 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)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2415
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 2420
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2421
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2422
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2423
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2424
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2433

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)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial

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

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2441
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2442
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2443
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2454
Then, 2456
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2457
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2458

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2462
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2463
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2464
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2470
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2471
Forms 2473
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2474
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2478
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2479
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2480
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2481
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2483
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2484
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2485
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2486
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2488
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2489
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2490
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2491
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2494
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2496
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2500
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2501
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2503
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2507
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2508
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2509
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2510
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2516
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2518
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2520
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2528
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2530
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2534
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2535
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2537
SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2539
such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2541
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2542
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2544
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2552
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2554
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2565
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2571
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2579


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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+19i=0 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme 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 R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

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

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 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)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {Vi+2i=011 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme 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)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2623
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2624
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2628
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2632
Then 2634
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2635
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2643
Then 2645
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2646
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2656
C(N SHG)Extreme 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)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2659
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2664
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2665
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2668
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2677

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)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2680
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2681
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2682

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2685
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2686
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2698
Then, 2700
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2701
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2702

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2706
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2707
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2708
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2714
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2715
Forms 2717
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2718
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2722
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2723
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2724
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2725
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2727
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2728
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2729
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2730
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2732
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2733
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2734
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2735
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2738
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2740
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2741
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2742
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2743
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2745
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2746
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2749
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2750
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2751
SuperHyperConnected; 2753
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2754
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2755
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2757
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2762
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2764
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2765
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2767
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2774
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2777
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2778
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2779
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2781
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2782
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2785
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of a Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2786
high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 2787
SuperHyperConnected; 2789
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2790
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2791
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2792
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2793
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2800
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2801
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2803
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2813
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2814
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2815
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2816
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2817
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as a Extreme 2818
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2819
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2820
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2823
E4 is a Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2824
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2825
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2826
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2828


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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial 20z 10 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+19i=0 }.

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

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


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 .

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)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+2i=011 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 10z.

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2892
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2893
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2897
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2901
Then 2903
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2904
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2907
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2912
Then 2914
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2915
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2925
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)Extreme 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)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2928
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2933
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2934
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2937
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2938
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2946
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

i
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
= z min |Pi
i
C(N SHG)Extreme 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)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2949
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2950

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2954
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2955
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2967
Then, 2969
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2970
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2971

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2975
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2976
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2977
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2978
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2984
17 Background 2985
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2986
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 2987
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 2988
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 2989
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 2990
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 2991
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 2992
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 2993
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 2994
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 2995
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 2996
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2997
results based on initial background. 2998
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 2999
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3000
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3001
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3002
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3003
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3004
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3005
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3006
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3007
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3008
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3009
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3010
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3011
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3012
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3013
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3014
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3015
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3016
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3017
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3018
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3019
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3020
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3021
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3022
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3023
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3024
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 3025
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3026
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3027
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3028
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3029
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 3030
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3031
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3032
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3033
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3034
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3035
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 3036
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3037
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3038
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3039
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3040
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3041
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3042
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3043
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3044
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3045
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 3046
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3047
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3048
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 3049
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 3050
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3051
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 3052
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3053
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3054
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3055
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 3056
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3057
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3058
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3059
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3060
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3061
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3062
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3063
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3064
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 3065
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3066
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 3067
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3068
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3069
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3070
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3071
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 3072
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3073
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [101] by Henry Garrett 3074
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3075
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3076
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [102] by Henry Garrett 3077
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3078
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3079
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [103] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3080
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3081
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3082
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [104] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3083
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3084
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [107] by 3085
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3086
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3087
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [108] by Henry 3088
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3089
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3090
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [111] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3091
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3092
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [114] by Henry 3093
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3094
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3095
in Ref. [115] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3096
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3097
Ref. [116] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3098
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3099
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [117] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3100
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3101
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [118] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3102
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3103
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3104
in Ref. [119] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3105
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3106
in Ref. [130] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3107
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3108
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [131] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3109
and [4–131], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 3110
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 3111
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3112
proposed as book in Ref. [132] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 3113
Scholar and has more than 3230 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3114
Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st 3115
Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different 3116
types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3117
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3118
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3119
proposed as book in Ref. [133] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 3120
Scholar and has more than 4117 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3121
and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell 3122
Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different 3123
types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of 3124
duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This 3125
research book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3126
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3127
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3128
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3129
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3130
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–131]. 3131
Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 3230 and 3132
4117 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [132, 133]. 3133
References 3134
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3135
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3136
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3137
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3138
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3139
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3140
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3141
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3142
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3143
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3144
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3145
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3146
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3147
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3148
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3149
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3150
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3151
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3152
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3153
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3154
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3155
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3156
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3157
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3158
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3159
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3160
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3161
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3162
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3163
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3164
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3165
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3166
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3167
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3168
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3169
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3170
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3171
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3172
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3173
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3174
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3175
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3176
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3177
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3178
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3179
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3180
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3182
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3183
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3184
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3185
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3186
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3187
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3188
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3189
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3190
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3191
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3192
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3193
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3194
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3195
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3197
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3198
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3199
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3200
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3201
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3202
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3204
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3208
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3209
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3210
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3211
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3212
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3213
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3214
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3215
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3216
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3217
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3218
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3219
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3220
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3221
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3222
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3223
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3224
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3225
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3226
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3227
24. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3228
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3229
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23423.28327). 3230
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3231
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3232
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28456.44805). 3233
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3235
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3237
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3238
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3239
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3241
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3243
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3244
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3247
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3248
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3249
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3250
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3253
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3255
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3257
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3259
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3260
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3262
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3264
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3266
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3268
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3269
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3270
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3271
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3272
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3274
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3275
40. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3276
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3277
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3280
42. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3282
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3283
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3286
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3287
44. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3288
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3289
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3292
46. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3294
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3296
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3298
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3299
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3300
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3301
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3304
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3305
50. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3306
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3307
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3310
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3311
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3312
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3313
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3316
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3317
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3318
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3319
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3322
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3323
56. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3324
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3325
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3328
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3329
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3330
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3331
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3333
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3334
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3337
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3338
61. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3339
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3340
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3343
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3344
63. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3345
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3346
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3349
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3351
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3352
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3355
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3356
67. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3357
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3358
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3360
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3361
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3364
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3365
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3367
71. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3369
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3370
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3372
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3373
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3375
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3376
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3377
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3378
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3379
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3380
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3381
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3382
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3384
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3385
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3386
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3387
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3388
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3389
78. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3390
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3391
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3392
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3393
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3396
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3397
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3400
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3401
81. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3402
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3404
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3405
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3408
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3409
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3412
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3413
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3414
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3415
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3416
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3417
85. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3418
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3419
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3420
86. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3421
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3422
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3423
87. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3424
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3425
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3426
88. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3427
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3428
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3429
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3430
89. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3431
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3432
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3433
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3434
90. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3435
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3436
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3437
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3438
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3439
91. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3440
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3441
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3442
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3443
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3444
92. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3445
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3446
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3447
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3448
93. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3449
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3450
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3451
94. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3452
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3453
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3455
95. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3456
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3457
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3458
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3459
96. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3460
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3461
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3462
97. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3463
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3464
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3465
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3466
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3467
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3468
98. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3469
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3470
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3471
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3472
99. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3473
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3474
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3475
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3476
100. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3477
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3478
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3479
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3480
101. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3481
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3482
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3483
102. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3484
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3485
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3486
103. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3488
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3489
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3490
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3491
104. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3492
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3493
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3494
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3495
105. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3496
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3497
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3498
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3499
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3501
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3502
107. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3503
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3504
108. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3506
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3507
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3508
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3513
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3517
111. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3518
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3519
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3520
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3521
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3524
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3526
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3527
114. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3528
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3529
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3532
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3533
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3535
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3536
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3539
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3540
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3542
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3543
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3546
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3547
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3549
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3550
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3552
122. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3554
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3557
123. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3559
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3562
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3569
126. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3570
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3571
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3572
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3573
127. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3574
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3575
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3576
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3577
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3580
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3581
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3584
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3585
130. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3586
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3587
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3588
131. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3589
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3590
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3591
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3592
132. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3593
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3594
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3595
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3596
133. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3597
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3598
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3599
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3600
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Nebulizer by Hyper Nub of Stable-Neighbor in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super Nebulizer by Hyper Nub of Stable-Neighbor in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of Stable-Neighbor In Cancer's

Preprint · March 2023

374 PUBLICATIONS 6,419 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic Graphs View project

Featured Articles View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 2

Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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