New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369682453
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
410 PUBLICATIONS 8,756 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic Graphs View project
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 31 March 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper 3
Nebbish On Super Nebulous 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
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
∀N (Ea ) ∈ P :
P is a SuperHyperPath and it has the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 16
∀N (Ea ) ∈ P :
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
∀N (Va ) ∈ P :
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 21
∀N (Va ) ∈ P :
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
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. [156],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 338
Set](Ref. [156],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 339
(NSHG)](Ref. [156],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 340
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [156],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [156], 341
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 342
(NSHG)](Ref. [156],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 343
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [156],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 344
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [156],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 345
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [156]. 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. [156],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. [156],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. [156],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. [156],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. [156], 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(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ). 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. [156],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 ∈ Ei0 . 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. [156],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. [156],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
∀N (Ea ) ∈ P :
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression 517
is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 518
∀N (Ea ) ∈ P :
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
∀N (Va ) ∈ P :
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if the following expression 522
is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 523
∀N (Va ) ∈ P :
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
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
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.
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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
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
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
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
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
again l < 32n2 /k 3 . 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 = 21 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
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 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 ) ≤ 2
= .
t 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
• 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 + 2z 3 .
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

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


834
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 837

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

= {E1 }.
= 2z 2 + z.
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
842


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
846

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




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
854

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
858


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
862

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

Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

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

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
870

= {E2 , E3 , E4 , E5 , E6 }.
= 5z 2 .
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }.
= z 8 + z 7 + 3z 5 .

(16.3)
874

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
878

(16.3)

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z2.
= {V1 }.
= z5.
882

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
886

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
890

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
894

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
898

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

(16.3)
902

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
906

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z 10 + z 2 .
= {VE2 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 + 7z.
910

(16.3)

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

= 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


1067
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1068

1069

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1070
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut 1071
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1072
some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic 1073
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic 1074
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1075
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1076
are coming up. 1077
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 1078
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1079
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 1080
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1081
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1082
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1083
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut and it’s an Neutrosophic 1084
Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it’s 1085
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 1086
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1087
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1088
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1089
“Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut” 1090
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1091
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut, 1092
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). 1093
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). 1094
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1095
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cut if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1096
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1097
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1098
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1099
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1100
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1101
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1102
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1103
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1104
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1105
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1106
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1107
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1108
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1109
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1110
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1111
R-Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it doesn’t have 1112
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1113
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1114
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1115
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1116
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1117
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1118
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1119
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1120
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1121
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1122
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1123
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1124
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1125
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1126
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut, VESHE is up. The obvious simple 1127
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut, VESHE , is a 1128
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1129
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1130
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1131
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1132
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1133
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1134
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1135
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1136
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1137
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cut only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1138
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1139
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1140
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1141
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1142
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1143
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1144
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Hamiltonian-Cut, is up. There’s neither empty 1145
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1146
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1147
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut. The 1148
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1149
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. 1150
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1151
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1152

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1153
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1154
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1156
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1157
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1158
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1159
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut is 1160
up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1161
Hamiltonian-Cut is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two Neutrosophic 1162
SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1163

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1165
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1166
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1167
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1168

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1169
Hamiltonian-Cut. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1170

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1172
ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 1173
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 1174
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1175
called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut and it’s an Neutrosophic 1176
Hamiltonian-Cut. Since it’s 1177
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1179
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1180
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1181
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1182
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1183

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut, 1184

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1185
Hamiltonian-Cut, not: 1186

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1187

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1188
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1189
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1190
“Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut” 1191
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1192
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cut, 1193
is only and only 1194

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1195
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1196
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1197
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1198
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1199
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1200
Then 1201

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1202
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1203
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1204
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1205
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 1206
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. The 1207
latter is straightforward. 1208
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1209
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1210
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1211
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1212
Then 1213

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1214
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)
1215
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 1216
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1217

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1221
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1222
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1223
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1225
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

Then 1226

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1227
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1228
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1229
There’s a new way to redefine as 1230

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 1234
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1235
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1236
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1237
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1238
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1240
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1241

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1242
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
1243
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 1244
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1245

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1248
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1249
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1250
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1251
the 1252
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1253
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1254
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1255
solution 1256
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1257
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1258
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1259
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1260
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1261
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1262
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1263
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 1264
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1265

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1266
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
1267
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 1269

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1272
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1273
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1274
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1275
the 1276
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1277
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1278
solution 1280
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1282
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1283
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1284
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1285
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1286
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1287
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1288
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1289
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1290

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {CEN T ER}.
= za.
Proof. Let 1291
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Example (16.13)
1292
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1294

latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Thus 1297
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1298
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut could be applied. The unique embedded 1299
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut proposes some longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 1300
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1301
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1303
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1304
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1305
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1306
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1308
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1309
For the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, and 1310
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, some general results are introduced. 1311
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is 1312
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1313
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then 1314
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 1315
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1316
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1317
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1318
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and 1319
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut coincide. 1320
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1322
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if and only if it’s a 1323
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1326
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut if and only if it’s a longest 1327
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1329
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 1330
is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and reversely. 1331
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic 1332
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1333
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. 1334
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 1335
and reversely. 1336
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1337
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1338
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined. 1339
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1340
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1341
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1345
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1346
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1348
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1349
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined. 1350
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1351
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1352
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1356
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1357
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1359
is 1360
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1361
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1362
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1363
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1364
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1365
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1366
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1367
∅ is 1368
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1369
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1370
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1371
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1372
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1373
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1374
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1375
independent SuperHyperSet is 1376
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1377
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1378
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1379
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1380
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1381
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1382
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1383
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1384
a maximal 1385
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1386
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1387
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1388
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1389
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1390
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1391
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1392
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1393
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1394
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1395
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1396
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1397
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1398
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1399
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1400
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1401
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1403
number of 1404
(i) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1405
(ii) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1406
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1407
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1408
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1409
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1410
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1411
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1412
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1414
(i) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1415
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1416
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1417
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1418
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1419
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1420
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1421
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1424
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1425
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1426
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1427
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1431
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1432
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1433
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1436
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1437
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1438
is a 1439
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1443
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1444
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1445
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1448
number of 1449
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1453
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1454
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1455
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1456
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1457
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1458
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1460
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1461
(iv) : SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1465
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1466
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1467
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1468
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1469
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1470
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1471
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1472
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1476
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1478
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1480
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1481
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1485
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1486
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1487
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1489
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1491
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1492
of a dual 1493
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1497
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1498
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1499
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1501
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1502
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1503
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1509
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1510
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1511
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1512
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1513
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1514
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1515
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1516
such that 1517
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1518
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1519
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1520
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then 1521
(i) S is SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut set; 1522
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1523
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1524
Then 1525
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1526
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1527
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1528
which is connected. Then 1529
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1530
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1531
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1532
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1533
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1535
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1536
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1537
a dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1538
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1539
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1540
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1542
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1543
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1544
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1545
dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1546
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then 1547
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1548
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1550
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1551
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1552
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1553
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then 1555
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1556
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1558
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1559
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1560
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1562
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1563
(ii) Γ = 1; 1564
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1565
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1566
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1568
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1569
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1570
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1571
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1572
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1573
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1574
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1575
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1576
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1578
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1579
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1580
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1582
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1583
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1585

bnc ; 1586
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1587
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1589
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1590
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1591
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF; 1592
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1593
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1594
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1595
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF : (V, E). 1596
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1597
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1598
SuperHyperSet. Then 1599
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1600
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF; 1601
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1602
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1603
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1604
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1606
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1607
SuperHyperSet. Then 1608
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1609
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut for N SHF : (V, E); 1610
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1611

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1612
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1613
Then following statements hold; 1616
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1617
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is an 1618
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1619
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1620
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is a dual 1621
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1622
Then following statements hold; 1624
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1625
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is an 1626
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1627
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1628
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, then S is a dual 1629
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1630
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1631
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1632
statements hold; 1633
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1634
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1635
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1636
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1638
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1640
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1641
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1642
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1643
statements hold; 1644
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1645
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1647
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1649
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1651
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1652
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1654
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1655
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1656
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1658
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1660
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1663
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1665
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1666
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| <b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1667
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1669
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1671
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut; 1672
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1674
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1676
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1677
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1678
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1680
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1682
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1685
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1687
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1688
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1689
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1691
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1693
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1696
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1697
Neutrosophic Recognition 1698
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1699
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1700
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1701
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1702
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1703
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1704
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1705
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1706
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1707
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1708
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1709
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1710
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1711
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1712
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1713
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1714
happened and what’s done. 1715
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1716
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1717
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1718
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1719
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 1720
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1721
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut or the Neutrosophic 1722
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 1723
SuperHyperModels. 1724
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1725
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1726
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1727
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1728
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1729
featured. 1730
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1731
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1732
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1733
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1734
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1735
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
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1737
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1738
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1739
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1740
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1741
Neutrosophic featured. 1742
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1743
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1744
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1745
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1746
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1747
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1749
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1750
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1751
The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut 1752
are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1753
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1754
recognitions? 1755
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1756
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut? 1757
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1758
compute them? 1759
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1760
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut? 1761
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Neutrosophic 1762
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1763
they’re based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, are there else? 1764
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1765
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1766
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1767
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1768
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1769
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1770
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1771
highlighted. 1772
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1773
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1774
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition 1775
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. 1776
Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1777
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, finds the convenient 1778
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1779
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1780
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1781
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1782
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1783
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1784
the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut. 1785
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 1786
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1787
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1788
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1789
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1790
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1791
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1792
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1793
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1794
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1795
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
1796
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1797
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1798
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1799
Forms 1800
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1801
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1805
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1806
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1807
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1808
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1809
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1810
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1811
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1812
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1813
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1814
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1815
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1816
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1817
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1818
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1821
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1823
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1824
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1825
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1826
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1828
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1829
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1832
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1833
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1836
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1837
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1838
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1839
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1840
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1841
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1842
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1843
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1844
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1845
Extreme coefficient; 1846
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1847
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1848
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1850
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1851
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1852
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1856
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1857
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1858
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 1863
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1865
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1866
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1873
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1874
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1879
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1880
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1882
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1884
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1890
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1893
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1894
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1898
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1899
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1900
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1901
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1902
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1903
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1904
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1905
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 1908
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1909
SuperHyperDuality. 1914

straightforward. 1917

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 1977
ESHP : (V, E). Then 1978
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 1979
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 1983
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1987
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1988
ESHC : (V, E). Then 1989
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 1990
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2001
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 2002
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2012
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 2015
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 2020
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2021
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2022
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2023
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2024
solution 2027
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2034

= {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 2037
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2038

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2044
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2049
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2057
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 2060
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 2061
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2062

∃!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 2067
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2068
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2075
Forms 2077
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2078
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2082
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2083
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2084
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2085
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2087
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2088
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2089
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2090
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2092
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2093
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2094
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2095
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2098
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2099
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2100
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 2101
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2102
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2103
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2105
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2106
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2108
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2113
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2114
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2115
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2116
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2117
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2122
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2124
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2127
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2128
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2129
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2130
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2133
coefficient; 2134
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2135
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2138
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2139
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2140
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2142
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2143
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2150
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2151
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2159
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2161
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2167
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2170
coefficient. 2171
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2175
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2176
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2177
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2178
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2179
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2180
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2182
SuperHyperJoin. 2183
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 2257
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2261
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2265

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

.
Proof. Let 2268
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2279
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 2280

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2290
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 2293
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 2298
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2299
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2300
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2302
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2303
solution 2305
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2312

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 2315
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2316

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2320
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2321
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2322
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2327
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2335

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

.
Proof. Let 2338
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2339

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2343
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2344
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2345
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2346
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2353
Forms 2355
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2356
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2360
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2361
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2362
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2363
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2365
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2366
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2367
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2368
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2370
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2371
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2372
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2373
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2376
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2378
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2381
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2383
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2384
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2391
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2392
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2393
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2394
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2400
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2402
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2403
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2411
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2413
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2418
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2420
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2421
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2428
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2429
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2437
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2439
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2445
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2448
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2453
SuperHyperPerfect. 2461
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 2535
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2539
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2543
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 2546
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2557
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2558

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2568
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 2571
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 2576
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2577
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2578
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2579
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2580
solution 2583
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2590

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 2593
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2594

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2598
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2599
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2600
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2605
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2613
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2616

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2617

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2621
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2622
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2623
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2624
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2631
Forms 2633
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2634
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2638
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2639
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2640
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2641
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2643
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2644
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2645
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2646
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2648
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2649
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2650
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2651
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2654
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2656
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2659
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2661
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2662
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2664
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2669
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2670
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2671
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2678
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2680
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2686
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2689
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2691
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2696
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2698
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2699
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2706
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2707
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2715
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2717
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2723
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2726
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2731
SuperHyperTotal. 2739
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 2813
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2817
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2821
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 2824
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 2835
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 2836
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2846
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 2849
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2854
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2855
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2858
solution 2861
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2868

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 2871
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2872

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2876
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2877
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2883
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2891
∗
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 2894
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2895

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2899
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2900
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2901
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2902
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2909
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2910
Forms 2911
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2912
SuperHyperConnected). 2913
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2917
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2918
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2919
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2920
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2921
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2922
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2924
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2925
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2926
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2927
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2928
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2929
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2931
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2932
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2933
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2934
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2937
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2939
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2940
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2941
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2942
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2944
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2945
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2948
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2949
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2952
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2953
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2954
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2955
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2956
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2957
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2958
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2959
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2961
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2962
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2963
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2964
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2965
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2966
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2969
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2972
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2973
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2974
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2977
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2978
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2979
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2981
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2982
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2985
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2986
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2989
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2990
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2993
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 2996
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2999
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3001
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3004
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3007
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3010
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3011
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3015
SuperHyperConnected. 3023
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 3097
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 3101
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3105
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 3108
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 3119
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 3120
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3130
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 3133
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3138
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3139
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3142
solution 3145
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3152
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 3155
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3160
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3161
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3167
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3175
∗
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 3178
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3180

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3183
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3184
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3185
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3186
17 Background 3194
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3195
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3196
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3197
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3198
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3199
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3200
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3201
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3202
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3203
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3204
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3205
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3206
results based on initial background. 3207
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3208
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3209
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3210
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3211
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3212
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3213
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3214
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3215
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3216
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3217
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3218
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3219
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3220
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3221
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3222
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3223
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3224
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3225
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3226
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3227
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3228
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3229
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3230
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3231
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3232
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3233
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3234
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3235
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3236
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3237
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3238
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3239
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3240
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3241
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3242
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3243
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3244
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3245
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3246
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3247
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3248
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3249
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3250
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3251
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3252
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3253
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3254
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3255
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3256
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3257
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3258
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3259
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3260
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3261
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3262
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3263
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3264
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3265
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3266
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3267
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3268
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3269
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3270
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3271
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3272
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3273
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3274
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3275
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3276
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3277
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3278
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3279
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3280
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3281
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3282
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3283
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [126] by Henry Garrett 3284
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3285
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3286
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [127] by Henry Garrett 3287
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3288
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3289
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [128] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3290
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3291
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3292
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [129] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3293
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3294
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [132] by 3295
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3296
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3297
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [133] by Henry 3298
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3299
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3300
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [136] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3301
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3302
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [139] by Henry 3303
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3304
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3305
in Ref. [140] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3306
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3307
Ref. [141] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3308
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [142] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3310
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3311
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [143] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3312
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3313
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3314
in Ref. [144] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3315
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3316
in Ref. [155] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3317
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3318
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [156] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3319
and [4–156], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 3320
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research 3321
books at [157–248]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3322
readers, 4087 and 5084 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [249, 250]. 3323
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3324
proposed as book in Ref. [237] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3325
Scholar and has more than 4093 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3326
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3327
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3328
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3329
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3330
proposed as book in Ref. [238] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3331
Scholar and has more than 5090 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3332
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3333
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3334
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3335
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3336
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3337
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3338
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3339
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3340
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–156] 3341
alongside scientific research books at [157–248]. Two popular scientific research books 3342
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4093 and 5090 respectively, on neutrosophic 3343
science is on [249, 250]. 3344
References 3345
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3346
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3347
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3348
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3349
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3350
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3351
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3352
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3353
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3354
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3355
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3356
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3357
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3358
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3359
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3360
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3361
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3362
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3363
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3364
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3365
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3366
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3367
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3368
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3369
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3370
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3371
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3372
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3373
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3374
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3375
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3376
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3377
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3378
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3379
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3380
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3381
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3382
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3383
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3384
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3385
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3386
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3387
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3388
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3389
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3390
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3391
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3392
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3393
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3394
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3395
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3396
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3397
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3398
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3399
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3400
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3401
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3402
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3403
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3404
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3405
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3406
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3407
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3408
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3409
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3410
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3411
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3412
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3414
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3415
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3416
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3417
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3418
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3419
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3421
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3425
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3426
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3427
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3428
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3429
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3430
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3431
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3432
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3433
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3434
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3435
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3436
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3437
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3438
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3439
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3440
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3441
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3442
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3443
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3444
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3445
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3446
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3447
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3448
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3449
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787094). 3450
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3452
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7781476). 3453
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3454
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3455
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3458
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3459
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3460
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3461
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3463
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3464
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3465
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3467
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3470
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3471
34. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3472
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3473
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3474
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3476
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3479
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3480
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3482
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3483
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3485
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3488
40. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3490
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3491
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3492
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3494
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3497
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3500
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3501
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3503
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3506
46. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3508
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3510
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3512
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3514
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3515
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3518
50. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3520
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3521
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3524
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3526
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3528
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3530
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3532
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3533
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3536
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3537
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3539
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3542
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3544
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3546
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3548
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3549
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3551
61. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3553
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3555
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3557
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3558
63. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3559
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3560
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3561
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3563
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3564
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3565
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3566
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3569
67. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3571
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3572
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3575
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3576
69. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3577
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3578
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3581
71. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3583
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3585
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3587
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3588
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3589
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3590
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3593
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3594
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3595
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3596
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3599
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3600
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3601
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3602
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3605
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3606
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3607
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3608
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3611
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3612
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3613
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3614
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3617
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3618
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3619
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3620
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3622
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3623
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3626
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3627
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3628
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3629
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3632
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3633
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3634
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3635
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3638
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3640
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3641
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3644
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3645
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3646
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3647
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3649
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3650
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3653
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3654
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3656
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3658
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3659
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3661
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3662
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3664
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3665
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3666
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3667
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3668
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3669
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3670
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3671
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3673
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3674
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3675
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3676
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3677
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3678
103. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3679
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3680
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3681
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3682
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3685
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3686
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3689
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3690
106. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3691
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3693
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3694
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3697
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3698
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3701
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3702
109. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3703
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3704
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3705
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3706
110. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3707
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3708
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3709
111. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3710
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3711
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3712
112. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3713
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3714
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3715
113. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3716
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3717
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3718
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3719
114. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3720
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3721
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3722
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3723
115. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3724
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3725
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3726
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3727
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3728
116. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3729
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3730
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3731
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3732
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3733
117. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3734
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3735
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3736
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3737
118. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3738
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3739
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3740
119. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3741
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3742
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3744
120. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3745
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3746
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3747
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3748
121. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3749
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3750
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3751
122. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3752
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3753
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3754
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3755
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3756
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3757
123. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3758
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3759
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3760
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3761
124. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3762
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3763
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3764
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3765
125. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3766
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3767
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3768
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3769
126. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3770
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3771
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3772
127. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3773
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3774
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3775
128. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3777
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3778
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3779
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3780
129. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3781
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3782
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3783
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3784
130. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3785
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3786
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3787
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3788
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3790
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3791
132. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3792
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3793
133. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3795
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3796
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3797
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3802
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3806
136. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3807
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3808
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3809
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3810
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3813
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3815
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3816
139. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3817
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3818
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3821
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3822
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3824
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3825
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3828
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3829
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3831
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3832
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3835
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3836
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3838
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3839
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3841
147. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3843
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3846
148. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3848
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3851
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3858
151. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3859
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3860
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3861
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3862
152. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3863
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3864
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3865
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3866
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3869
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3870
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3873
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3874
155. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3875
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3876
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3877
156. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3878
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3879
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3880
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3881
157. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3882
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787712). 3883
158. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3884
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3885
159. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3886
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3887
160. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3888
161. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3890
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3891
162. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3892
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3893
163. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3894
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3895
164. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3896
165. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3898
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3899
166. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3900
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3901
167. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3902
168. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3904
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3905
169. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3906
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3907
170. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3908
171. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3910
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3911
172. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3912
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3913
173. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3914
174. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3916
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3917
175. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3918
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3919
176. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3920
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3921
177. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3922
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3923
178. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3924
179. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3926
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3927
180. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3928
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3929
181. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3930
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3931
182. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3932
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3933
183. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3934
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3935
184. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3936
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3937
185. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3938
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3939
186. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3940
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3941
187. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3942
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3943
188. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3944
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3945
189. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3946
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3947
190. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3948
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3949
191. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3950
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3951
192. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3952
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3953
193. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3954
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3955
194. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3956
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3957
195. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3958
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3959
196. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3960
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3961
197. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3962
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3963
198. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3964
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3965
199. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3966
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3967
200. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3968
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3969
201. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3970
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3971
202. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3972
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3973
203. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3974
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3975
204. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3976
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3977
205. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3978
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3979
206. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3980
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3981
207. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3982
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3983
208. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3984
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3985
209. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3986
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3987
210. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3988
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3989
211. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3990
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3991
212. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3992
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3993
213. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3994
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3995
214. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3996
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3997
215. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3998
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3999
216. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4000
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4001
217. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4002
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4003
218. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4004
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4005
219. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4006
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4007
220. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4008
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4009
221. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4010
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4011
222. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4012
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4013
223. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4014
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4015
224. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4016
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4017
225. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4018
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4019
226. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4020
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4021
227. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4022
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4023
228. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4024
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4025
229. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4026
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4027
230. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4028
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4029
231. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4030
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4031
232. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4032
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4033
233. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4034
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4035
234. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4036
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4037
235. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4038
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4039
236. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4040
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4041
237. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4042
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4043
238. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4044
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4045
239. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4046
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4047
240. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4048
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4049
241. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4050
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4051
242. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4052
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4053
243. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4054
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4055
244. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4056
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4057
245. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4058
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4059
246. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4060
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4061
247. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4062
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4063
248. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4064
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4065
249. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4066
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4067
250. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4068
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4069
View publication stats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · March 2023

410 PUBLICATIONS 8,756 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic Graphs View project

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper 3

Nebbish On Super Nebulous 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 16

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cut criteria holds 21

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