New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.
com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper 3
On Super Hammy 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
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 10
a Hamiltonian-Cut 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-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 14
∀Ea ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperVertice
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 16
∀Ea ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperVertice
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 19
∀Va ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 21
∀Va ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 24
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and Neutrosophic 25
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). 26
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 27
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 28
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 32
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 33
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive 34
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 35
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; a Neutrosophic 36
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 40
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 41
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 42
conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 43
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 44
an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 45
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 46
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and 47
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 48
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 49
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 50
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 51
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 52
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and 53
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 54
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 55
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic 59
coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic 60
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 61
of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 62
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 63
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 64
Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of 65
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 69
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 70
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 71
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; a 72
Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 73
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 77
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 78
cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 79
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 80
an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 81
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 85
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 86
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 87
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and 89
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 90
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 91
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic 95
coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic 96
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 97
of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 98
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 100
Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is introduced for new 101
SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and Neutrosophic 102
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut 103
for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, 104
and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature 105
review is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the 106
significancy of this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other 107
SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions 108
are followed by the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with 109
different tools. The applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical 110
aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to 111
figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special 112
case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. 113
Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. 114
These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 115
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 116
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 117
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 118
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 119
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 120
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 121
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 122
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 123
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 124
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 125
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 126
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is a 127
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 128
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 129
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 130
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 131
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 132
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 133
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 134
version of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . Since there’s more ways to get type-results 135
to make a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut more understandable. For the sake of having 136
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 137
“SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 138
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 139
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 140
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 141
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of 142
Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 143
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & 144
The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 145
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of 146
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 147
“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get 148
structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 149
SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . It’s the main. It’ll be 150
disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of 151
SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut until the 152
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” 153
but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . There are some instances about 154
the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut ”. These 155
two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 156
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . For 157
the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, there’s a need to 158
“redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” and a 159
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 160
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 161
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 162
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 163
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut are redefined to a 164
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to 165
define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 166
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut more 167
understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 168
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 169
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 170
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 171
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”, “Neutrosophic 172
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 173
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 174
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” where 175
it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the 176
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices 177
from a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut .] SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut . A graph is a 178
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 179
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 180
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 181
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 182
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 183
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 184
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 185
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 186
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 187
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 188
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 189
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 190
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 191
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 192
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 193
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 194
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 195
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 196
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 197
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 198
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 199
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 200
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 201
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 202
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 203
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 204
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 205
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 206
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 207
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 208
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 209
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 210
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 211
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 212
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 213
either the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut or the strongest 214
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 215
longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, called SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and the 216
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, called Neutrosophic 217
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 218
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 219
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 220
of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. There isn’t any formation of any 221
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 222
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 223
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut theory, SuperHyperGraphs, 224
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 225
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 226
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 227
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 228
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 229
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 230
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 231
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 232
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 233
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 234
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 235
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 236
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 237
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 238
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 239
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 240
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 241
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 242
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 243
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 244
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 245
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 246
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 247
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 248
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 249
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 250
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 251
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 252
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 253
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 254
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 255
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 256
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 257
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 258
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 259
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 260
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 261
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 262
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 263
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 264
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 265
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 266
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 267
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 268
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 269
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 270
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 271
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 272
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 273
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 274
either the optimal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut or the Neutrosophic 275
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general 276
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic 277
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 278
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 279
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. There isn’t any formation of any 280
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 281
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 282
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 283
find the “ amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” of either individual of cells or the 284
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 285
of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 286
group of cells? 287
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 288
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 289
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 290
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 291
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” on 292
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 293
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 294
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 295
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 296
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 297
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 298
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 299
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 300
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 301
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 302
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 303
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 304
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 305
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, are figured out in sections “ 306
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”. In the 307
sense of tackling on getting results and in Hamiltonian-Cut to make sense about 308
continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 309
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 310
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 311
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going 312
back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 313
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 314
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 315
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 316
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 317
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 318
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 319
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”, 320
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 321
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 322
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 323
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 324
presented in section, “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”. The keyword of this research 325
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 326
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 327
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 328
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 329
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 330
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 331
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 332
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 333
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 334
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 335
Research On the Redeemed Ways 336
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 337
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [152],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 338
Set](Ref. [152],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 339
(NSHG)](Ref. [152],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 340
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [152],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [152], 341
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 342
(NSHG)](Ref. [152],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 343
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [152],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 344
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [152],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 345
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [152]. 346
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 347
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 348
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [152],Definition 2.1,p.1). 349
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cut 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 350
+
]− 0, 1 [. 351
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [152],Definition 2.2,p.2). 352
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cut 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. [152],Definition 353
2.5,p.2). 354
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 355
pair S = (V, E), where 356
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 357
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 358
1, 2, . . . , n); 359
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 360
V; 361
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 362
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 363
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 364
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 365
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 366
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 367
(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 . 368
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 369
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 370
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 371
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 372
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 373
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 374
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 375
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 376
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 377
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 378
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 379
(Ref. [152],Definition 2.7,p.3). 380
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 381
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 382
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 383
characterized as follow-up items. 384
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 385
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 386
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 387
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 388
HyperEdge; 389
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 390
SuperEdge; 391
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 392
SuperHyperEdge. 393
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 394
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 395
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [152], Definition 2.7, p.3). 396
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 397
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 398
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 399
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 400
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 401
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 402
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)). 403
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 404
pair S = (V, E), where 405
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 406
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 407
1, 2, . . . , n); 408
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 409
V; 410
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 411
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 412
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 413
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 414
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 415
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 416
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 417
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 418
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 419
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 420
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 421
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 422
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 423
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 424
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 425
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 426
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 427
(Ref. [152],Definition 2.7,p.3). 428
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 429
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 430
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 431
characterized as follow-up items. 432
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 433
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 434
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 435
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 436
HyperEdge; 437
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 438
SuperEdge; 439
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 440
SuperHyperEdge. 441
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 442
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 443
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 444
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 445
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 446
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 447
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 448
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 449
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 450
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 451
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 452
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 453
given SuperHyperEdges; 454
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 455
SuperHyperEdges; 456
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 457
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 458
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 459
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 460
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 461
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 462
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 463
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 464
common SuperVertex. 465
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 466
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 467
of following conditions hold: 468
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 469
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 470
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 471
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 477
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 478
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 479
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. 480
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 481
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 482
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 483
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 484
SuperHyperPath . 485
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 486
(Ref. [152],Definition 5.3,p.7). 487
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 488
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 489
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 490
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 491
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 492
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 493
(NSHE)). (Ref. [152],Definition 5.4,p.7). 494
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 495
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 496
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 497
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 498
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 499
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 500
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 501
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 503
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 504
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 506
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 507
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 508
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 509
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 510
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). 511
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 513
either V 0 or E 0 is called 514
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is 515
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 516
∀Ea ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperV
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression 517
is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 518
∀Ea ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperV
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 519
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is 520
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 521
∀Va ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperV
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression 522
is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 523
∀Va ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperV
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 524
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 525
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 528
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). 529
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 532
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 536
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 537
the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 538
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 539
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 540
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 541
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 544
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 545
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 546
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 547
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 550
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 551
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 552
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 553
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 554
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 555
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 556
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 557
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 558
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 559
its Extreme coefficient; 560
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial 561
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 562
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 564
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 565
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 566
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 567
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 568
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 569
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Neutrosophic 570
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 571
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 572
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 576
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 577
in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and 578
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 579
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of 581
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a 584
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 585
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 586
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 587
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 588
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 589
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if 590
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 591
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 593
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 596
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 599
its Extreme coefficient; 600
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial 601
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 602
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 604
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 607
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and the Neutrosophic 610
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 611
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). 612
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 613
(i) an δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 614
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut such that either of the following expressions hold for 615
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 616
|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 617
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 618
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is a Neutrosophic kind of 619
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut such that either of the following 620
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 621
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 622
|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. 623
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 624
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 625
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, there’s a need to 626
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 627
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 628
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 629
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 630
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 631
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 632
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 633
understandable. 634
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 635
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 636
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 637
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 638
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 639
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 640
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 641
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 642
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 643
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 644
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut more Neutrosophicly understandable. 645
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, there’s a need 646
to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut”. 647
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 648
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 649
assign to the values. 650
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. It’s redefined a 651
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the Table (3) holds. 652

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut But 653
As The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And 654
Super Forms 655
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 656
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V is 658
called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 659
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 660
probability of A. 661
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 662
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 664
Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 665
s-independent criteria 666
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 667
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 668
criteria 669
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 670
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Any k-function Hamiltonian-Cut like E is 672
called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Hamiltonian-Cut like 673
E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 674
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 675
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 676
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 678
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 679
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 680
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 681
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. A Neutrosophic number is called 683
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 684
Crossing criteria 685
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 686
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let m and n propose 687
special Hamiltonian-Cut. Then with m ≥ 4n, 688
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 689
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 690
Neutrosophic independently with probability Hamiltonian-Cut p := 4n/m, and set 691
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 692
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 693
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
694
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 695
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let P be a 696
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 697
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 698
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 699
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 700
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive 701
points on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 702
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 703
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 704
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 705
2 3
again l < 32n /k . 706
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let P be a 708
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 709
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 710
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 711
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 712
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 713
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 714
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
715
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 716
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints 717
on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 718
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 719
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 720
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 721
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 722
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 723
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 724
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 725
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 726
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let X be a 727
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 728
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. 729
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 730
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let Xn be a 731
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cut (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 732
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 733
Proof. 734
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. A special 736
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 737
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. A special SuperHyperGraph in 739
Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 740
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 741
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 742
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 743
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 744
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 745
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 746
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 747
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 748
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: 749
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 750
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 751
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 752
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 753
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 754
stability number at most k. 755
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 756
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 758
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 759
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 760
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let X be a 762
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 763
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let X be a Neutrosophic 765
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 766
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
767
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let Xn be a 769
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cut (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 770
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 771
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| 773
in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 774
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 775
when Xn = 0. 776
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 778
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 779
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 780
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 781
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. As in the proof of related 783
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 784
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 786
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 787
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 788
or 789
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 790
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. The latter is straightforward. 792
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 793
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let P be a monotone property of 795
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 796
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 797
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 798
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 799
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 800
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 802
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 803
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 804
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. Let F be a 806
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 807
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 808
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 809
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cut. The latter is straightforward. 811
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 812
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 813
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 814
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 815
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 816
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 817
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 818
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 819
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 820
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 821
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 822
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 823
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut

= {E4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cut
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
824
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 827
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 828
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 829
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 830
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 831
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 832

excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 833

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
= z 5 + z 3 + z.
834
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 837

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 }.
= z8 + z4 + z3.
838



= {E4 (E5 ), E1 , E2 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
= {VE4 (E5 ) , VE1 , {O}}.
= z 4 + z 3 + 2z 2 + 4z.
842


= {E1 , E4 }.
= 2z 5 .
= {Vi , Vi+8 , V5 }4i=1 .
= z 7 + 2z 4 + 5z 3 + z 2 .
846

= {Ei , Ei+22 , E22 }10
i=1 .
= 21z 2 .
= {Vi }22
i=1 .
= 2z 6 + 6z 5 + 7z 4 + 3z 3 .
850


= {E15 , E13 , E16 , E14 , E17 }.
= 2z 5 + z 4 + 2z 2 .
= {Vi }14
i=1 .
= 3z 6 + 6z 5 + 3z 4 + 2z 3 .
854

= {E2 , E4 , E3 }.
= 2z 5 + z 3 .
= {Vi }14
i=4,i6=12 .
= 3z 6 + 5z 5 + 2z 4 .



858

= {Ei , E22 }10
i=1 .
= 11z 2 .
= {Vi }22
i=1 .
= 2z 6 + 6z 5 + 7z 4 + 3z 3 .
862

= {E1 , E6 , E2 , E7 , E3 }.
= 2z 5 + z 4 + 2z 2 .
= {Vi }14
i=1 .
= 3z 6 + 6z 5 + 3z 4 + 2z 3 .
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)
866

= {E1 , E6 , E3 }.
= 2z 3 + z 2 .
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 }.
= 3z 5 + z 4 + 2z 3 .
870

(16.3)

= {E1 , E6 }.
= z5 + z2.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }.
= 2z 7 + z 6 + 3z 5 .
874

= {E9 , E6 , E3 }.
= 2z 3 + z 2 .
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 }.
= 3z 5 + z 4 + 2z 3 .
878

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {E1 , E2 }.
= 2z 2 .
= {V1 , V2 , V3 }.
= 2z 5 + z 3 .
882

(16.3)

= {Ei }5i=1 .
= 5z 2 .
= {Vi }6i=1 .
= 3z 5 + z 4 + 2z 3 .
886

= {Ei }5i=1 .
= 5z 2 .
= {Vi }22
i=1 .
X
= z |Vi | .
Vi ∈C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cut
890

(16.3)

= {Ei }6i=1 .
= 6z 2 .
= {Vi }27
i=1 .
X
= z |Vi | .
894

= {Ei }6i=1 .
= 6z 2 .
= {Vi }27
i=1 .
X
= z |Vi | .
898

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {Ei }12
i=1 .
X
= z |Ei | .
Ei ∈C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut

= {VEi }12
i=1 .
X
= z |VEi | .
VEi ∈C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cut
902

(16.3)

= {E6 , E8 }.
= z |E6 | + z |E8 | .
= {VEi , V1 }i=6,8 .
= z |VE6 | + z |VE8 | + z |V1 | .
906

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z 10 + z 2 .
= {VE2 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 + 7z.

(16.3)

(16.3)
910

= {Ei }5i=2 .
= z 12 + 2z 10 + z 6 .
= {VEi }5i=2 .
X
= z |VEi | .
914
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 915
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 916
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 917
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 918
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 919
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 920
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 921
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 922
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 923
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut minus all Neutrosophic 924
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 925
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 926
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut, minus 927
all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 928
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 929
R-Hamiltonian-Cut is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 930
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 931
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 932
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 933
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut in 934
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 935
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 936
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut. 937
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cut has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cut with the least Neutrosophic 938
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 939
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 940
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 941
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cut = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cut = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Hamiltonian-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the 942
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Hamiltonian-Cut is 943
the cardinality of 944
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cut = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut.
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 945
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 946
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 947
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 948
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 949
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 950
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 951
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 952
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut decorates the

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used 953
Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case and the 954
common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific Neutrosophic 955
SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are Neutrosophic 956
free-quasi-triangle. 957
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has at least no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in
common. Thus those Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be
contained in a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut. Those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Neutrosophic style-R-Hamiltonian-Cut.
Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut but
with slightly differences in the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality amid those
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut.

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong
to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 958
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
959
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut where

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 960
R-Hamiltonian-Cut is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 961
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 962
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 963
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 964
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut in 965
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 966
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 967
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut. 968
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 969
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 970
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 971
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 972
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 973
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 974
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 975
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 976
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 977
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 978
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 979
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut where the 980
Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, 981
a Neutrosophic embedded R-Hamiltonian-Cut. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 982
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 983
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 984
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 985
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. 986
The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are included in the 987
minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut. The 988
interior types of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the 989
Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior 990
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more 991
formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any 992
distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic 993
R-Hamiltonian-Cut. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only 994
in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with 995
the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 996
In the embedded Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut, there’s the usage of exterior 997
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 998
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 999
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1000
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1001
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1002
R-Hamiltonian-Cut. The Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut with the exclusion of the 1003
exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1004
and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut with the inclusion of all 1005
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, is a 1006
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 1007
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic 1008
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct 1009
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Neutrosophic 1010
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them 1011
but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Neutrosophic 1012
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic 1013
SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut, minus all 1014
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1015
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut has two titles. a 1016
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1017
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1018
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut with that 1019
quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 1020
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1021
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1022
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cuts for all Neutrosophic 1023
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1024
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1025
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut, again and more in the operations of collecting 1026
all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cuts acted on the all possible used 1027
formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic number. 1028
This Neutrosophic number is 1029
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cuts. 1030
Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut be a 1031
Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic 1032
Hamiltonian-Cut. Then 1033
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut is 1034
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1035
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1036
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut. 1037
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1038
Hamiltonian-Cut poses the upcoming expressions. 1039
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1040
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1041

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1042


1043
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1044

1045

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1046
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1047
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1048
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1049
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cut” but, precisely, it’s the 1050
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cut” since “Neutrosophic 1051
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cut” happens “Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut” in a Neutrosophic 1052
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “Neutrosophic 1053
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut” in a 1054
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background 1055
since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise 1056
from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, 1057
“Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cut”, and “Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut” are up. 1058
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1059
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1060
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut and the new terms are 1061
up. 1062

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1063
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1064
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1065
And with go back to initial structure, 1066


∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1067

1068

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1069
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut 1070
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1071
some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic 1072
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic 1073
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1074
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1075
are coming up. 1076
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut.
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut.

The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1077
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1078
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by

Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut is related to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended

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

R-Hamiltonian-Cut. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1079
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1080
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1081
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1082
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut and it’s an Neutrosophic 1083
Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it’s 1084
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given
by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut.
There isn’t only less than two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut,
is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Hamiltonian-Cut, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1085
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1086
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1087
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1088
“Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut” 1089
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1090
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut, 1091
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut amid those
obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
Hamiltonian-Cut, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1092
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

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

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut is the cardinality
of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1093
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1094
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1095
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1096
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1097
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1098
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1099
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1100
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1101
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1102
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1103
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1104
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1105
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1106
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1107
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1108
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1109
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1110
R-Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it doesn’t have 1111
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1112
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1113
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1114
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1115
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1116
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1117
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1118
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1119
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1120
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1121
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1122
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1123
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1124
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1125
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut, VESHE is up. The obvious simple 1126
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut, VESHE , is a 1127
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1128
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1129
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1130
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1131
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1132
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1133
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1134
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1135
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1136
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1137
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1138
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1139
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1140
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1141
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1142
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1143
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Hamiltonian-Cut, is up. There’s neither empty 1144
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1145
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1146
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut. The 1147
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1148
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cut

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−CutSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cut = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut. 1149
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1150
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1151

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1152
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1153
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1155
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1156
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1157
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1158
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut is 1159
up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1160
Hamiltonian-Cut is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two Neutrosophic 1161
SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1162

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1164
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1165
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1166
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1167

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1168
Hamiltonian-Cut. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1169

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1171
ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 1172
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 1173
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1174
called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut and it’s an Neutrosophic 1175
Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it’s 1176
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1178
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1179
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1180
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1182

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut, 1183

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1184
Hamiltonian-Cut, not: 1185

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1186

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1187
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1188
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1189
“Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut” 1190
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1191
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut, 1192
is only and only 1193

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1194
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1195
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1196
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1197
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1198
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1199
Then 1200

|E |
= {Ei }i=1N SHG .
X
= z |Ei | .

|E |
= {VEi }i=1N SHG .
X
= z |VEi | .
Proof. Let 1201
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1202
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1203
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1204
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 1205
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. The 1206
latter is straightforward. 1207
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1208
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1209
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1210
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1211
Then 1212

|E |
= {Ei }i=1N SHG .
X
= z |Ei | .

|E |
= {VEi }i=1N SHG .
X
= z |VEi | .
Proof. Let 1213
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Example (16.5)
1214
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1215
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1216

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1220
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1221
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1222
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1224
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

Then 1225

= {Ei , Ej }i=1,...,|EN SHG | .
= z |Ei | + z |Ej | .
= {VEi , CEN T ER, VEj }.
= z |VEi | + z |VEj | + z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1226
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1227
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1228
There’s a new way to redefine as 1229

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1233
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1234
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1235
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1236
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1237
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1239
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1240

= {Ei }i=1,...,|PNmin
SHG |
.
X
= z |Ei | .
min
i=1,...,|PN SHG |

= {VEi }i=1,...,|PNmin
SHG |
.
X
= z |VEi | .
min
i=1,...,|PN SHG |
Proof. Let 1241
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
1242
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1243
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1244

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1247
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1248
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1249
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1250
the 1251
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1252
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1253
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1254
solution 1255
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1256
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1257
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1258
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1259
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1260
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1261
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1262
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1263
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1264

= {Ei }i=1,...,|PNmin
SHG |
.
X
= z |Ei | .
min
i=1,...,|PN SHG |

= {VEi }i=1,...,|PNmin
SHG |
.
X
= z |VEi | .
min
i=1,...,|PN SHG |
Proof. Let 1265
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
1266
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1268

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1271
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1272
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1273
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1274
the 1275
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1276
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1277
solution 1279
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1281
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1282
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1283
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1284
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1285
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1286
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1287
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1288
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1289

|E |−1
= {Ei , Ej∗ , Ek∗ }i=1N SHG .
X ∗ ∗
= z |Ei | + z |Ej | + z |Ek | .

|E |
= {VEi , VEj∗ , VEk∗ }i=1N SHG .
X |V ∗ | |V ∗ |
= z |VEi | + z Ej + z Ek .
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Example (16.13)
Proof. Let 1290
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1291
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1293

latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Thus 1296
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1297
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut could be applied. The unique embedded 1298
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut proposes some longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 1299
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1300
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1302
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1303
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1304
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1305
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1307
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1308
For the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and 1309
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, some general results are introduced. 1310
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is 1311
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1312
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then 1313
N eutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cut =

{theSuperHyperHamiltonian − Cutof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cut
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperHamiltonian−Cut. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1314
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1315
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1316
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1317
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and 1318
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut coincide. 1319
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1321
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if and only if it’s a 1322
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1325
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if and only if it’s a longest 1326
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1328
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 1329
is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and reversely. 1330
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic 1331
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1332
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. 1333
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 1334
and reversely. 1335
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1336
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1337
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined. 1338
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1339
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1340
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1344
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1345
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1347
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1348
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined. 1349
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1350
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1351
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1355
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1356
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1358
is 1359
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1360
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1361
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1362
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1363
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1364
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1365
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1366
∅ is 1367
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1368
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1369
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1370
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1371
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1372
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1373
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1374
independent SuperHyperSet is 1375
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1376
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1377
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1378
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1379
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1380
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1381
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1382
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1383
a maximal 1384
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1385
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1386
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1387
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1388
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1389
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1390
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1391
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1392
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1393
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1394
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1395
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1396
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1397
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1398
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1399
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1400
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1402
number of 1403
(i) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1404
(ii) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1405
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1406
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1407
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1408
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1409
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1410
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1411
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1413
(i) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1414
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1415
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1416
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1417
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1418
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1419
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1420
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1423
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1424
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1425
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1426
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1430
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1431
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1432
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1435
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1436
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1437
is a 1438
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1442
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1443
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1444
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1447
number of 1448
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1452
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1453
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1454
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1455
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1456
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1457
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1459
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1460
(iv) : SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1464
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1465
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1466
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1467
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1468
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1469
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1470
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1471
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1475
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1477
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1479
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1480
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1484
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1485
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1486
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1488
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1490
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1491
of a dual 1492
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1496
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1497
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1498
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1500
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1501
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1502
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1508
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1509
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1510
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1511
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1512
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1513
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1514
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1515
such that 1516
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1517
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1518
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1519
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then 1520
(i) S is SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut set; 1521
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1522
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1523
Then 1524
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1525
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1526
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1527
which is connected. Then 1528
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1529
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1530
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1531
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1532
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1534
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1535
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1536
a dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1537
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1538
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1539
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1541
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1542
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1543
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1544
dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1545
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then 1546
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1547
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1549
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1550
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1551
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1552
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then 1554
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1555
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1557
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1558
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1559
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1561
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1562
(ii) Γ = 1; 1563
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1564
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1565
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1567
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1568
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1569
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1570
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1571
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1572
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1573
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1574
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1575
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1577
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1578
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1579
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1581
bn
2c
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1584

bnc ; 1585
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1586
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1588
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1589
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1590
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF; 1591
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1592
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1593
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1594
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF : (V, E). 1595
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1596
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1597
SuperHyperSet. Then 1598
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1599
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF; 1600
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1601

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1602
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1603
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1605
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1606
SuperHyperSet. Then 1607
bn
2c
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF : (V, E); 1609
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1610

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1611
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1612
Then following statements hold; 1615
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1616
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is an 1617
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1618
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1619
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is a dual 1620
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1621
Then following statements hold; 1623
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1624
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is an 1625
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1626
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1627
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is a dual 1628
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1629
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1630
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1631
statements hold; 1632
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1633
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1634
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1635
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1637
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1639
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1640
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1641
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1642
statements hold; 1643
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1644
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1646
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1648
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1650
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1651
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1653
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1654
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1655
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1657
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1659
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1662
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1664
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1665
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1666
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1668
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1670
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1671
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1673
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1675
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1676
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1677
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1679
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1681
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1684
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1686
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1687
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1688
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1690
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1692
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1695
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1696
Neutrosophic Recognition 1697
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1698
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1699
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1700
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1701
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1702
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1703
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1704
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1705
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1706
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1707
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1708
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1709
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1710
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1711
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1712
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1713
happened and what’s done. 1714
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1715
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1716
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1717
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1718
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 1719
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1720
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut or the Neutrosophic 1721
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 1722
SuperHyperModels. 1723
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1724
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1725
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1726
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1727
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1728
featured. 1729
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1730
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1731
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1732
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1733
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1734
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1736
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1737
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1738
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1739
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1740
Neutrosophic featured. 1741
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1742
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1743
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1744
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1745
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1746
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1748
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1749
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1750
The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 1751
are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1752
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1753
recognitions? 1754
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1755
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut? 1756
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1757
compute them? 1758
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1759
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut? 1760
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Neutrosophic 1761
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1762
they’re based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, are there else? 1763
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1764
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1765
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1766
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1767
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1768
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1769
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1770
highlighted. 1771
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1772
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1773
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition 1774
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. 1775
Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1776
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, finds the convenient 1777
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1778
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1779
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1780
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1781
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1782
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1783
the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1784
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 1785
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1786
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1787
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1788
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1789
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1790
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1791
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1792
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1793
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1794
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1795
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1796
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1797
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1798
Forms 1799
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1800
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1804
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1805
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1806
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1807
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1808
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1809
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1810
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1811
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1812
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1813
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1814
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1815
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1816
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1817
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1820
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1822
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1823
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1824
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1825
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1827
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1828
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1831
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1832
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1835
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1836
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1837
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1838
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1839
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1840
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1841
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1842
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1843
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1844
Extreme coefficient; 1845
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1846
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1847
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1849
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1850
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1851
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1855
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1856
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1857
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 1862
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1864
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1865
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1872
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1873
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1878
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1879
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1881
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1883
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1889
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1892
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1893
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1897
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1898
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1899
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1900
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1901
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1902
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1903
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1904
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1907
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1908
SuperHyperDuality. 1913

straightforward. 1916

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1976
ESHP : (V, E). Then 1977
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1978
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1982
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1986
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1987
ESHC : (V, E). Then 1988
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1989
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2000
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2001
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2011
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

= {Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
X
=( (min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |)choose|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |)
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
= {ViEXT ERN AL ∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2014
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 2019
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2020
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2021
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2022
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2023
solution 2026
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2033

= {Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2036
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2037

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2043
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2048
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2056
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2059
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2060
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2061

∃!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 2066
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2067
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2074
Forms 2076
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2077
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2081
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2082
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2083
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2084
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2086
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2087
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2088
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2089
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2091
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2092
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2093
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2094
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2097
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2098
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2099
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 2100
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2101
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2102
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2104
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2105
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2107
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2112
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2113
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2114
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2115
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2116
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2121
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2123
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2126
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2127
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2128
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2129
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2132
coefficient; 2133
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2134
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2137
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2138
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2139
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2141
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2142
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2149
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2150
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2158
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2160
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2166
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2169
coefficient. 2170
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2174
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2175
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2176
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2177
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2178
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2179
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2180
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2181
SuperHyperJoin. 2182
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

.
Proof. Let 2256
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2260
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2264

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

.
Proof. Let 2267
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2278
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2279

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2289
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

= (PERFECT MATCHING).
{Ei ∈ EPi ESHG:(V,E) ,
∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | = min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
If ∃Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) | =
6 min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |.
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
where ∀Pi ESHG:(V,E) , |Pi ESHG:(V,E) |
= min |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈ P ESHG:(V,E) |}.
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2292
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 2297
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2298
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2299
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2301
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2302
solution 2304
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2311

i
= (OTHERWISE).
{},
i
X
i
i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
ESHG:(V,E)
∈P ESHG:(V,E) |
z min |Pi
i
= (OTHERWISE)0.
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , Vi
EXT ERN AL
∈ VPEXT
i
ERN AL
ESHG:(V,E) , i 6= j}.

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2314
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2315

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2319
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2320
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2321
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2326
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2334

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

.
Proof. Let 2337
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2338

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2342
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2343
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2344
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2345
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2352
Forms 2354
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2355
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2359
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2360
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2361
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2362
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2364
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2365
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2366
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2367
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2369
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2370
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2371
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2372
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2375
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2377
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2380
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2382
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2383
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2390
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2391
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2392
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2393
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2399
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2401
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2402
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2410
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2412
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2417
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2419
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2420
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2427
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2428
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2436
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2438
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2444
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2447
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2452
SuperHyperPerfect. 2460
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2534
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2538
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2542
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2545
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2556
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2557

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2567
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2570
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 2575
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2576
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2577
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2578
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2579
solution 2582
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2589

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2592
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2593

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2597
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2598
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2599
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2604
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2612
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2615

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2616

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2620
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2621
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2622
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2623
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2630
Forms 2632
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2633
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2637
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2638
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2639
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2640
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2642
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2643
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2644
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2645
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2647
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2648
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2649
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2650
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2653
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2655
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2658
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2660
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2661
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2663
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2668
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2669
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2670
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2677
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2679
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2685
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2688
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2690
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2695
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2697
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2698
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2705
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2706
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2714
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2716
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2722
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2725
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2730
SuperHyperTotal. 2738
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2812
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2816
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2820
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2823
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2834
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2835
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2845
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2848
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2853
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2854
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2857
solution 2860
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2867

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2870
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2871

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2875
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2876
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2882
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2890
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2893
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2894

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2898
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2899
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2900
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2901
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2908
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2909
Forms 2910
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2911
SuperHyperConnected). 2912
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2916
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2917
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2918
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2919
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2920
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2921
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2923
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2924
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2925
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2926
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2927
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2928
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2930
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2931
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2932
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2933
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2936
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2938
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2939
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2940
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2941
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2943
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2944
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2947
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2948
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2951
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2952
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2953
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2954
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2955
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2956
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2957
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2958
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2960
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2961
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2962
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2963
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2964
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2965
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2968
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2971
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2972
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2973
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2976
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2977
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2978
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2980
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2981
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2984
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2985
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2988
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2989
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2992
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 2995
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2998
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3000
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3003
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3006
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3009
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3010
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3014
SuperHyperConnected. 3022
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3096
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3100
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3104
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3107
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3118
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3119
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3129
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3132
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3137
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3138
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3141
solution 3144
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3151
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3154
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3159
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3160
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3166
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3174
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3177
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3179

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3182
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3183
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3184
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3185
17 Background 3193
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3194
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3195
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3196
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3197
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3198
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3199
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3200
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3201
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3202
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3203
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3204
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3205
results based on initial background. 3206
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3207
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3208
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3209
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3210
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3211
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3212
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3213
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3214
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3215
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3216
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3217
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3218
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3219
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3220
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3221
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3222
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3223
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3224
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3225
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3226
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3227
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3228
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3229
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3230
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3231
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3232
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3233
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3234
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3235
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3236
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3237
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3238
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3239
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3240
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3241
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3242
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3243
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3244
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3245
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3246
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3247
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3248
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3249
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3250
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3251
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3252
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3253
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3254
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3255
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3256
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3257
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3258
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3259
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3260
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3261
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3262
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3263
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3264
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3265
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3266
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3267
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3268
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3269
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3270
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3271
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3272
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3273
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3274
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3275
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3276
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3277
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3278
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3279
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3280
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3281
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3282
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [122] by Henry Garrett 3283
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3284
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3285
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [123] by Henry Garrett 3286
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3287
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3288
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [124] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3289
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3290
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3291
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [125] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3292
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3293
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [128] by 3294
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3295
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3296
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [129] by Henry 3297
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3298
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3299
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [132] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3300
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3301
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [135] by Henry 3302
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3303
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3304
in Ref. [136] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3305
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3306
Ref. [137] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3307
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3308
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [138] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3309
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3310
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [139] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3311
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 3312
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [140] by Henry 3313
Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3314
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [151] by Henry 3315
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3316
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3317
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [152] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–152], there 3318
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3319
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3320
at [95, 153, 154, 156–242]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of 3321
high readers, 4087 and 5084 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [243, 244]. 3322
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3323
proposed as book in Ref. [231] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3324
Scholar and has more than 4093 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3325
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3326
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3327
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3328
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3329
proposed as book in Ref. [232] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3330
Scholar and has more than 5090 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3331
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3332
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3333
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3334
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3335
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3336
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3337
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3338
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3339
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–152] 3340
alongside scientific research books at [153–242]. Two popular scientific research books 3341
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4093 and 5090 respectively, on neutrosophic 3342
science is on [243, 244]. 3343
References 3344
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3345
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3346
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3347
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3348
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3349
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3350
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3351
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3352
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3353
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3354
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3355
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3356
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3357
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3358
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3359
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3360
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3361
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3362
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3363
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3364
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3365
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3366
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3367
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3368
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3369
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3370
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3371
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3372
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3373
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3374
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3375
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3376
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3377
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3378
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3379
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3380
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3381
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3382
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3383
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3384
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3385
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3386
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3387
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3388
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3389
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3390
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3391
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3392
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3393
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3394
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3395
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3396
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3397
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3398
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3399
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3400
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3401
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3402
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3403
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3404
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3405
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3406
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3407
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3408
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3409
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3410
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3411
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3413
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3414
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3415
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3416
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3417
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3418
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3420
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3424
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3425
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3426
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3427
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3428
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3429
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3430
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3431
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3432
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3433
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3434
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3435
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3436
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3437
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3438
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3439
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3440
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3441
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3442
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3443
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3444
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3445
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3446
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3447
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3448
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7779286). 3449
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3450
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3451
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3452
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3453
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3454
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7772468). 3455
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3457
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3458
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3459
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3460
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3461
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3463
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3466
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3467
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3469
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3470
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3472
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3475
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3477
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3478
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3479
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3481
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3484
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3487
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3488
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3490
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3493
42. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3495
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3497
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3499
44. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3501
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3502
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3505
46. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3507
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3508
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3511
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3513
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3515
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3517
50. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3519
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3520
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3523
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3524
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3526
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3529
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3531
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3533
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3535
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3536
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3538
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3540
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3542
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3544
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3545
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3546
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3547
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3548
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3550
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3551
61. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3552
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3553
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3556
63. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3558
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3559
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3562
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3563
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3564
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3565
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3568
67. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3570
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3572
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3574
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3575
69. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3576
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3577
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3580
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3581
71. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3582
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3583
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3586
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3587
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3588
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3589
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3592
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3593
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3594
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3595
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3598
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3599
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3600
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3601
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3604
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3605
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3606
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3607
80. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3609
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3610
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3613
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3614
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3615
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3616
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3619
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3620
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3621
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3622
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3625
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3627
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3628
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3631
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3632
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3633
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3634
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3636
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3637
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3640
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3641
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3643
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3645
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3646
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3648
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3649
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3651
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3652
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3653
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3654
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3655
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3656
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3657
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3658
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3660
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3661
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3662
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3663
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3664
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3665
99. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3666
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3667
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3668
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3669
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3672
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3673
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3676
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3677
102. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3678
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3680
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3681
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3684
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3685
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3688
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3689
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3690
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3691
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3692
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3693
106. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3694
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3695
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3696
107. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3697
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3698
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3699
108. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3700
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3701
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3702
109. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3703
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3704
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3705
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3706
110. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3707
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3708
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3709
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3710
111. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3711
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3712
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3713
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3714
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3715
112. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3716
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3717
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3718
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3719
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3720
113. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3721
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3722
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3723
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3724
114. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3725
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3726
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3727
115. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3728
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3729
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3731
116. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3732
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3733
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3734
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3735
117. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3736
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3737
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3738
118. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3739
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3740
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3741
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3742
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3743
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3744
119. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3745
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3746
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3747
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3748
120. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3749
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3750
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3751
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3752
121. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3753
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3754
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3755
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3756
122. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3757
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3758
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3759
123. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3760
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3761
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3762
124. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3764
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3765
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3766
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3767
125. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3768
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3769
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3770
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3771
126. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3772
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3773
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3774
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3775
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3777
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3778
128. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3779
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3780
129. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3782
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3783
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3784
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3789
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3793
132. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3794
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3795
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3796
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3797
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3800
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3802
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3803
135. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3804
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3805
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3808
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3809
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3811
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3812
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3815
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3816
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3818
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3819
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3822
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3823
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3825
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3826
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3828
143. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3830
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3833
144. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3835
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3838
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3845
147. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3846
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3847
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3848
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3849
148. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3850
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3851
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3852
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3853
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3856
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3857
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3860
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3861
151. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3862
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3863
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3864
152. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3865
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3866
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3867
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3868
153. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3869
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3870
154. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3871
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7773119). 3872
155. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3873
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3874
156. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3875
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3876
157. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3877
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3878
158. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3879
159. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3881
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3882
160. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3883
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3884
161. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3885
162. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3887
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3888
163. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3889
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3890
164. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3891
165. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3893
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3894
166. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3895
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3896
167. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3897
168. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3899
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3900
169. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3901
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3902
170. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3903
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3904
171. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3905
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3906
172. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3907
173. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3909
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3910
174. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3911
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3912
175. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3913
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3914
176. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3915
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3916
177. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3917
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3918
178. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3919
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3920
179. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3921
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3922
180. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3923
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3924
181. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3925
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3926
182. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3927
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3928
183. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3929
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3930
184. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3931
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3932
185. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3933
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3934
186. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3935
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3936
187. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3937
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3938
188. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3939
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3940
189. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3941
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3942
190. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3943
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3944
191. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3945
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3946
192. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3947
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3948
193. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3949
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3950
194. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3951
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3952
195. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3953
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3954
196. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3955
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3956
197. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3957
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3958
198. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3959
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3960
199. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3961
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3962
200. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3963
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3964
201. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3965
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3966
202. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3967
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3968
203. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3969
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3970
204. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3971
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3972
205. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3973
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3974
206. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3975
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3976
207. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3977
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3978
208. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3979
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3980
209. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3981
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3982
210. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3983
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3984
211. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3985
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3986
212. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3987
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3988
213. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3989
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3990
214. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3991
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3992
215. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3993
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3994
216. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3995
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3996
217. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3997
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3998
218. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3999
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4000
219. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4001
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4002
220. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4003
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4004
221. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4005
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4006
222. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4007
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4008
223. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4009
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4010
224. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4011
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4012
225. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4013
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4014
226. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4015
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4016
227. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4017
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4018
228. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4019
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4020
229. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4021
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4022
230. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4023
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4024
231. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4025
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4026
232. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4027
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4028
233. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4029
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4030
234. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4031
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4032
235. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4033
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4034
236. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4035
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4036
237. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4037
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4038
238. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4039
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4040
239. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4041
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4042
240. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4043
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4044
241. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4045
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4046
242. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4047
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4048
243. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4049
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4050
244. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4051
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4052

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.

com · Manhattan, NY, USA

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper 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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 10

a Hamiltonian-Cut 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-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 14

∀Ea ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperVertice

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 15

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 16

∀Ea ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperVertice

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

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 19

∀Va ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 21

∀Va ∈ P : P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices

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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 24

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and Neutrosophic 25

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut). 26

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

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

Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 30

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and Neutrosophic 31

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 32

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 33

of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive 34

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 35

that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; a Neutrosophic 36

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 38

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and Neutrosophic 39

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 40

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 41

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 42

conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 43

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 44

an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 45

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic 46

re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and 47

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 48

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 49

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 50

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 51

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 52

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; and 53

the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 54

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 55

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, 56

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and Neutrosophic 57

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 58

N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic 59

coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic 60

cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 61