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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369707997
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy
Preprint · April 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
413 PUBLICATIONS 9,140 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
On Combinatorics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 01 April 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-Cycle-Cut As Hyper 3
Hamper On Super Hammy 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10
(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 11
SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 12
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is 13
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 14
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
a SuperHyperCycle and it has
the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 16
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 19
∀Va ∈ C : C is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 21
∀Va ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 24
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 25
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 26
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. ((Neutrosophic) 27
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 28
(NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 29
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 30
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 31
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 34
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 35
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 39
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 40
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 43
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 44
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 45
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 46
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 47
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 48
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 49
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 54
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 55
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 56
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 57
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 59
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 60
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 66
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 67
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 68
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 69
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 70
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power is 71
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 72
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 73
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 78
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the 79
conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 80
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; a Neutrosophic 82
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 83
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 88
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 89
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 92
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 98
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 99
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 100
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 103
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 104
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 110
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 111
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 112
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Neutrosophic power is 115
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 116
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 117
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Two different types of 118
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 119
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 120
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 121
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 122
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 123
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 124
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 125
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 126
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 127
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 128
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 129
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 130
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 131
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 132
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 133
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 134
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 135
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 136
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 137
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 138
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 139
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 140
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 141
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 142
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic 143
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is a maximal Neutrosophic of 144
SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the 145
following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 146
s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 147
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 148
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 149
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 150
version of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . Since there’s more ways to get 151
type-results to make a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut more understandable. For 152
the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a need to 153
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut ”. The 154
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 155
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 156
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . It’s redefined a 157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the mentioned Table holds, 158
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 159
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 160
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 161
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 162
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 163
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 164
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 165
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 166
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 167
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 168
have all SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut until the 169
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then it’s officially called a 170
“SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” but otherwise, it isn’t a 171
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . There are some instances about the clarifications 172
for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut ”. These two 173
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 174
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 175
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 176
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 177
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” and a “Neutrosophic 178
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 179
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 180
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 182
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut are redefined to a 183
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” if the intended Table holds. It’s 184
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 185
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 186
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 187
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 188
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 189
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 190
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 191
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 192
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 193
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 194
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” where it’s the strongest [the 195
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut amid the 196
maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 197
.] SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 198
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 199
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 200
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 201
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s 202
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s 203
SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; 204
it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 205
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 206
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 207
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 208
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 209
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 210
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 211
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 212
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 213
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 214
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 215
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 216
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 217
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 218
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 219
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 220
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 221
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 222
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 223
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 224
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 225
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 226
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 227
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 228
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 229
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 230
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 231
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 232
either the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut or the strongest 233
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 234
longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, called SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 235
and the strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, called Neutrosophic 236
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 237
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 238
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 239
of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. There isn’t any formation of any 240
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 241
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 242
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut theory, 243
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 244
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 245
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 246
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 247
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 248
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 249
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 250
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 251
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 252
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 253
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 254
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 255
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 256
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 257
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 258
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 259
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 260
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 261
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 262
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 263
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 264
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 265
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 266
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 267
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 268
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 269
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 270
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 271
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 272
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 273
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 274
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 275
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 276
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 277
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 278
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 279
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” in the themes of jargons and 280
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 281
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 282
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 283
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 284
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 285
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 286
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 287
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 288
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 289
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 290
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 291
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 292
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 293
either the optimal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut or the Neutrosophic 294
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 295
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 296
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 297
since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 298
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. There isn’t any formation of any 299
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 300
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 301
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 302
find the “ amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” of either individual of cells or 303
the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the 304
“amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” based on the fixed groups of cells or the 305
fixed groups of group of cells? 306
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 307
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 308
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 309
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 310
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” and “Neutrosophic 311
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic 312
SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 313
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 314
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 315
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 316
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 317
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 318
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 319
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 320
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 321
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 322
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 323
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 324
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 325
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and Neutrosophic 326
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, are figured out in sections “ 327
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” and “Neutrosophic 328
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 329
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 330
SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 331
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 332
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 333
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 334
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 335
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 336
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 337
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 338
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 339
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 340
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 341
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”, “Neutrosophic 342
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 343
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s done 344
about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and going 345
to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 346
presented in section, “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”. The keyword of this 347
research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 348
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 349
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 350
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 351
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 352
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 353
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 354
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 355
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 356
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 357
Research On the Redeemed Ways 358
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 359
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [158],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 360
Set](Ref. [158],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 361
(NSHG)](Ref. [158],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 362
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [158],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [158], 363
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 364
(NSHG)](Ref. [158],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 365
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [158],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 366
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [158],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 367
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [158]. 368
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 369
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 370
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [158],Definition 2.1,p.1). 371
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cycle-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 372
+
]− 0, 1 [. 373
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [158],Definition 2.2,p.2). 374
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cycle-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. [158],Definition 375
2.5,p.2). 376
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 377
pair S = (V, E), where 378
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 379
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 380
1, 2, . . . , n); 381
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 382
V; 383
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 384
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 385
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 386
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 387
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 388
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 389
(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 . 390
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 391
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 392
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 393
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 394
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 395
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 396
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 397
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 398
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 399
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 400
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 401
(Ref. [158],Definition 2.7,p.3). 402
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 403
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 404
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 405
characterized as follow-up items. 406
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 407
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 408
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 409
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 410
HyperEdge; 411
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 412
SuperEdge; 413
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 414
SuperHyperEdge. 415
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 416
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 417
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [158], Definition 2.7, p.3). 418
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 419
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 420
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 421
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 422
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 423
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 424
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)). 425
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 426
pair S = (V, E), where 427
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 428
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 429
1, 2, . . . , n); 430
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 431
V; 432
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 433
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 434
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 435
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 436
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 437
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 438
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 439
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 440
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 441
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 442
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 443
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 444
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 445
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 446
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 447
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 448
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 449
(Ref. [158],Definition 2.7,p.3). 450
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 451
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 452
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 453
characterized as follow-up items. 454
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 455
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 456
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 457
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 458
HyperEdge; 459
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 460
SuperEdge; 461
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 462
SuperHyperEdge. 463
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 464
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 465
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 466
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 467
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 468
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 469
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 470
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 471
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 472
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 473
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 474
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 475
given SuperHyperEdges; 476
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 477
SuperHyperEdges; 478
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 479
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 480
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 481
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 482
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 483
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 484
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 485
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 486
common SuperVertex. 487
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 488
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 489
of following conditions hold: 490
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 491
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 492
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 493
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 494
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 495
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 496
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 497
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 498
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 499
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 500
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 501
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. 502
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 503
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 504
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 505
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 506
SuperHyperPath . 507
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 508
(Ref. [158],Definition 5.3,p.7). 509
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 510
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 511
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 512
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 513
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 514
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 515
(NSHE)). (Ref. [158],Definition 5.4,p.7). 516
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 517
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 518
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 519
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 520
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 521
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 522
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 523
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 525
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 526
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 528
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 529
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 530
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 531
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 532
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). 533
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 535
either V 0 or E 0 is called 536
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following 537
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 538
criteria holds 539
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following 540
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 541
criteria holds 542
∀Ea ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 543
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following 544
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 545
criteria holds 546
∀Va ∈ C : C is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following 547
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 548
criteria holds 549
∀Va ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 550
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of 551
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 552
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 555
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). 556
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of 559
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 564
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 565
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 566
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 567
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 568
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of 569
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 574
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 575
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 578
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 579
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 585
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 586
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 587
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 588
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is 590
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 591
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 592
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 598
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 599
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 600
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 601
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 602
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the 603
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 604
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of 605
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 612
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 614
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of 615
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 620
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 621
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 625
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 633
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is 636
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 637
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 638
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 646
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the 649
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 650
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). 651
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 652
(i) an δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is a Neutrosophic kind of 653
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut such that either of the following 654
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 655
s∈S: 656
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 657
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 658
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is a Neutrosophic 659
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut such that either of the 660
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 661
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 662
|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. 663
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 664
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 665
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a 666
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 667
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 668
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 669
assign to the values. 670
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 671
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 672
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 673
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 674
understandable. 675
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 676
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 677
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 678
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 679
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 680
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 681
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 682
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 683
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 684
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make 685
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut more Neutrosophicly 686
understandable. 687
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, there’s a 688
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 689
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 690
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 691
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 692

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. It’s redefined a 693
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the Table (3) holds. 694
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 695
But As The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And 696
Super Forms 697
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 698
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of 700
V is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 701
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 702
probability of A. 703
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 704
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 706
called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 707
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 708
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 709
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 710
criteria 711
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 712
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Any k-function 714
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 715
2-function Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 716
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 717
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 718
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 720
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 721
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 722
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 723
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. A Neutrosophic number is called 725
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 726
Crossing criteria 727
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 728
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let m and n 729
propose special Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Then with m ≥ 4n, 730
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 731
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 732
Neutrosophic independently with probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut p := 4n/m, and 733
set H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 734
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: 735
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
736
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 737
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let P be a 738
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 739
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 740
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 741
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 742
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive 743
points on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 744
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 745
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 746
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 747
again l < 32n2 /k 3 . 748
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let P be a 750
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 751
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 752
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 753
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 754
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 755
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 756
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
757
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 758
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints 759
on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 760
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 761
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 762
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 763
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 764
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 765
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 766
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 767
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 768
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let X be a 769
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 770
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. 771
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 772
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let Xn be a 773
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 774
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 775
Proof. 776
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. A special 778
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 779
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. A special 781
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of 782
k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 783
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 784
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 785
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 786
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 787
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 788
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 789
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 790
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: 791
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 792
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 793
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 794
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 795
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 796
stability number at most k. 797
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 798
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 800
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 801
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 802
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let X be a 804
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 805
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let X be a Neutrosophic 807
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 808
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ 2
= .
t t2
809
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let Xn be a 811
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 812
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 813
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Set X := Xn and 815
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 816
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 817
when Xn = 0. 818
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let 820
G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least 821
value of k for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the 822
three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 823
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. As in the proof of related 825
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 826
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 828
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 829
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 830
or 831
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 832
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The latter is 834
straightforward. 835
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 836
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let P be a monotone property of 838
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 839
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 840
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 841
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 842
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 843
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 845
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 846
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 847
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Let F be a 849
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 850
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 851
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 852
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The latter is 854
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 856
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 857
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 858
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 859
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 860
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 861
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 862
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 863
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 864
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 865
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 866
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 867
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut

= {E4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
868
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 871
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 872
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 873
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 874
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 875
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 876
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 877

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
878
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 881

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 }.
= z8 + z4 + z3.
882

= {E4 , E5 }.
= 2z 5 .
= {V1 , V2 , V3 , {N }, {F }}.
= z 4 + z 3 + z 2 + 2z.
886




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

= {Eii=110 , Ejj=2232 , E12 }.
= 22z 2 .
= {Vi }22
i=1 .
22
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
894




= {E15 , E13 , E16 , E14 , E17 , E12 }.
= 2z 5 + z 4 + 3z 2 .
= {Vi }11
i=1 .
11
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
898

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
902


= {Eii=110 , Ejj=2223 , E12 }.
= 13z 2 .
= {Vi }22
i=1 .
22
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
906
begineqnarray* C(NSHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut

={E1 , E6 , E2 , E7 , E3 , E4 }.
C(NSHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
=2z5 + z 4 + 3z 2 .
C(NSHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut
={Vi }11
i=1 .
C(NSHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut SuperHyperPolynomial
P11
= i=1 z |Vi | . 910
On the Figure (11), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 911

Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

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

(16.3)

= {E1 , E6 , E3 , E8 }.
= 2z 3 + 2z 2 .
= {Vi }6i=1 .
6
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
914

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
918

(16.3)

= {E9 , E6 , E3 , E8 }.
= 2z 3 + 2z 2 .
= {Vi }6i=1 .
6
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
922

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

(16.3)
926

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
930

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

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)
934

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
938

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
942

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {Eii=112 }.
12
X
= z |Ei | .
i=1
= {Vi }ai=1 .
Xa
= z |Vi | .
i=1
946

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
950

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z 10 + z 2 .
= {VE2 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 + 7z.
954

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
958
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 959
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 960
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if for any of them, and any of other 961
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 962
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 963
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 964
amount of them. 965
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 966
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 967
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 968
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut minus all Neutrosophic 969
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 970
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 971
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 972
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 973
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-Cycle-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 974
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 975
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 976
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 977
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 978
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 979
in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 980
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 981
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic 982
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 983
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut with the least 984
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 985
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 986
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 987
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. In other words, the least 988
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic 989
type-result-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is the cardinality of 990
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-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 991
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 992
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 993
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 994
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 995
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 996
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 997
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 998
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut has the Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 999
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 1000
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 1001
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 1002
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 1003
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-Cycle-Cut. Those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Neutrosophic
style-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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

E
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 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, 1004
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
1005
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 1006
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of 1007
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the 1008
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the 1009
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 1010
Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic 1011
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic 1012
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 1013
SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a 1014
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1015
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 1016
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 1017
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 1018
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1019
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 1020
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 1021
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1022
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 1023
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 1024
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 1025
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 1026
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 1027
where the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus 1028
it’s, literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The 1029
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In 1030
the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1031
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1032
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1033
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 1034
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 1035
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1036
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1037
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1038
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1039
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct types 1040
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1041
Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Neutrosophic 1042
SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the interior 1043
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the 1044
embedded Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, there’s the usage of exterior 1045
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 1046
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 1047
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1048
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1049
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1050
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut with the 1051
exclusion of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1052
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 1053
with the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1054
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. To sum them up, 1055
in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s 1056
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1057
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1058
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut minus all Neutrosophic 1059
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 1060
an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1061
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1062
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1063
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut has two titles. a 1064
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1065
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1066
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut with 1067
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1068
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1069
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1070
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cuts for all Neutrosophic 1071
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1072
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of 1073
the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, again and more in the operations of 1074
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cuts acted on the all possible 1075
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic 1076
number. This Neutrosophic number is 1077
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded 1078
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cuts. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1079
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1080
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Then 1081
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is 1082
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1083
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-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 1084
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1085
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-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 1086
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut poses the upcoming expressions. 1087
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1088
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1089

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1090


1091
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1092

1093

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1094
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1095
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1096
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1097
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” but, precisely, it’s the 1098
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” since “Neutrosophic 1099
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” happens “Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” in a 1100
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1101
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic 1102
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1103
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1104
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1105
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic 1106
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut”, and “Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” are up. 1107
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1108
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1109
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the new 1110
terms are up. 1111

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1112
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1113
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1114
And with go back to initial structure, 1115


1116
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1117

1118

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1119
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1120
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1121
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1122
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1123
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1124
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1125
are coming up. 1126
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1127
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1128
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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet
called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-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-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1129
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1130
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1131
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1132
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and it’s an 1133
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since it’s 1134
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-Cycle-Cut. There isn’t only less than two Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut,
is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1135
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1136
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1137
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1138
“Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” 1139
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1140
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1141
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-Cycle-Cut amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1142
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

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

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is
the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1143
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1144
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1145
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1146
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1147
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1148
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1149
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1150
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1151
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1152
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1153
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1154
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1155
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1156
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1158
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1159
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1160
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since it doesn’t have 1161
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1162
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1163
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1164
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1165
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1166
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since it doesn’t do the 1167
Neutrosophic procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to 1168
have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one 1169
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected 1170
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1171
titled its Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in 1172
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1173
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1174
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1175
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, VESHE is up. The obvious 1176
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1177
VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1178
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1179
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1180
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1181
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1182
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1183
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1184
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1185
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1186
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1187
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1188
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1189
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1190
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1191
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1192
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1193
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, is up. There’s neither 1194
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1195
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1196
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The 1197
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1198
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−Cut = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−CutSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1199
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1200
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1201

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1202
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1203
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1205
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1206
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1207
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1208
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic 1209
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1210
called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1211
includes only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic 1212
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1213

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1214
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1215
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1216
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1217

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1218
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1219
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1220

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1221
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1222
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1223
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1224
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and it’s an 1225
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Since it’s 1226
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1228
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1229
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1230
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1231
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1232

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1233

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1234
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, not: 1235

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1236

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1237
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1238
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1239
“Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” 1240
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1241
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1242
is only and only 1243

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1244
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1245
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1246
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1247
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1248
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1249
Then 1250

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1251
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1252
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 1253
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1254
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 1255
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1256
The latter is straightforward. 1257
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1258
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1259
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1260
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Example (16.5)
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1261
Then 1262

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1263
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1264
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1265
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1266

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1270
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1271
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1272
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1274
Then 1275

= {Ei }.
i=1|EN SHG |

|EN SHG |
X
= z |Ei | .
i=1
|V
N SHG |
= {Vi }i=1 .
|VN SHG |
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
Proof. Let 1276
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1277
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1278
There’s a new way to redefine as 1279

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1283
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1284
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1285
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1286
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1287
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1289
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1290

= {Ei |P min |
}.
i=1 N SHG

min
|PN SHG |
X
= z |Ei | .
i=1
|V
N SHG |
= {Vi }i=1 .
|VN SHG |
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
Proof. Let 1291
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1292
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 1293
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1294

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1297
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1298
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut could be applied. 1299
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1300
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1301
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1302
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1303
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1304
solution 1305
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1307
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1308
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1309
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1310
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1311
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1312
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1313
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Example
(16.11)
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1314

= {Ei |P min |
}.
i=1 N SHG

min
|PN SHG |
X
= z |Ei | .
i=1
|V
N SHG |
= {Vi }i=1 .
|VN SHG |
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
Proof. Let 1315
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1316
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 1318

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one 1321
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the 1322
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut could be applied. 1323
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1324
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1326
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1327
solution 1329
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1331
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1332
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1333
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1334
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1335
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1336
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1337
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1338
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Example (16.13)
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1339

= {Ei , Ei∗ , Ej∗ }.
i=1|EN SHG |

|EN SHG |+2
X
= z |Ei | .
i=1
|V
N SHG |
= {Vi }i=1 .
|VN SHG |
X
= z |Vi | .
i=1
Proof. Let 1340
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1341
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1343

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

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one 1346
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the 1347
SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut could be applied. The 1348
unique embedded SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut proposes some longest 1349
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1350
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1353
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1354
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1355
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1356
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1358
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1359
For the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 1360
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and the Neutrosophic 1361
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, some general results are introduced. 1362
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is 1363
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1364
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Then 1365
N eutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Cut =

{theSuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Cutof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − Cut
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperHamiltonian−Cycle−Cut. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1366
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1367
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1368
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1369
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and 1370
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut coincide. 1371
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1373
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if and only if it’s a 1374
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1377
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if and only if it’s a longest 1378
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1380
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1381
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and 1382
reversely. 1383
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic 1384
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, SuperHyperStar, 1385
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 1386
letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is its 1387
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and reversely. 1388
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1389
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1390
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined. 1391
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1392
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1393
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 1397
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1398
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1400
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1401
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined. 1402
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1403
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined if and only if 1404
its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined. 1405
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 1408
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined if and only if its 1409
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut is well-defined. 1410
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1411
is 1412
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1413
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1414
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1415
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1416
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1417
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1418
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1419
∅ is 1420
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1421
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1422
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1423
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1424
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1425
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1426
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1427
independent SuperHyperSet is 1428
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1429
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1430
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1431
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1432
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1433
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1434
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1435
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then 1436
V is a maximal 1437
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1438
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1439
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1440
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1441
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1442
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1443
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1444
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1445
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1446
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1447
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1448
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1449
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1450
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1451
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1452
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1454
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut/SuperHyperPath. Then 1456
the number of 1457
(i) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1458
(ii) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1459
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1460
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1461
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1462
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1463
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1464
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1465
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1467
(i) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1468
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1469
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1470
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1471
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1472
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1473
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1474
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1477
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1478
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1479
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1480
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1484
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1485
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1486
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1490
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1491
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1492
is a 1493
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1497
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1498
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1499
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1502
number of 1503
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1507
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1508
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1509
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1511
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1512
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1513
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1515
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1516
(iv) : SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1520
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1521
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1522
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1523
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1524
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1525
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1526
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1527
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1531
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1532
(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1537
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1538
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1542
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1543
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1544
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1546
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1548
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1549
of a dual 1550
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1554
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1555
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1557
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1560
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1561
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1562
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1566
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1571
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1572
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1573
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1574
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1575
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1576
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then 1577
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1578
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1579
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1580
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1581
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then 1582
(i) S is SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut set; 1583
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1584
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1585
Then 1586
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1587
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1588
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1589
which is connected. Then 1590
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1591
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1592
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1593
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1594
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1596
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1597
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1598
a dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1599
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1600
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1601
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1603
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1604
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1605
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1606
dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1607
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1608
Then 1609
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1610
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1612
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1613
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1614
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1615
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1617
Then 1618
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1619
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1621
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1622
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1623
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1625
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1626
(ii) Γ = 1; 1627
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1628
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1629
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1631
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1632
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1633
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1634
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1635
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1636
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1637
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1638
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1639
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1641
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1642
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1643
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1645
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1646
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1648

bnc ; 1649
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1650
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1652
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1653
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1654
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF; 1655
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1656
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1657
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1658
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF : (V, E). 1659
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1660
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1661
SuperHyperSet. Then 1662
b n c+1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1663
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF; 1664
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1665

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1666
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1667
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1669
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1670
SuperHyperSet. Then 1671
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1672
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut for N SHF : (V, E); 1673
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1674

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1675
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1676
Then following statements hold; 1679
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1680
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then S is an 1681
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1682
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1683
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then S is a dual 1684
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1685
Then following statements hold; 1687
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1688
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then S is an 1689
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1690
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1691
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, then S is a dual 1692
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1693
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1694
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1695
statements hold; 1696
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1697
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1698
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1699
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1701
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1703
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1704
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1705
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1706
statements hold; 1707
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1708
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1710
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1712
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1714
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1715
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1717
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1718
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1719
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1721
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1723
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1726
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1728
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1729
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1730
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1732
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1734
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; 1735
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1737
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1739
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1740
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1741
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1743
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1745
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1748
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1750
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. Then following statements hold; 1751
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1752
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1754
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1756
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. 1759
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1760
Neutrosophic Recognition 1761
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1762
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1763
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1764
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1765
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1766
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1767
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1768
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1769
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1770
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1771
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1772
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1773
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1774
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1775
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1776
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1777
happened and what’s done. 1778
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, which 1779
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic models. 1780
The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 1781
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 1782
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1784
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut or the 1785
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut in those Neutrosophic 1786
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1787
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1788
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1789
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1790
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1791
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1792
featured. 1793
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1794
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1795
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1796
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1797
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1798
Figure 30. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1800
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1801
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1802
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1803
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1804
Neutrosophic featured. 1805
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1806
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1807
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1808
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1809
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1810
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1812
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1813
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1814
The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the Neutrosophic 1815
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut are defined on a real-world application, titled 1816
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1817
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1818
recognitions? 1819
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1820
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the Neutrosophic 1821
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut? 1822
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1823
compute them? 1824
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1825
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the Neutrosophic 1826
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut? 1827
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the Neutrosophic 1828
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions 1829
and they’re based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, are there else? 1830
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1831
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1832
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1833
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1834
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1835
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1836
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1837
highlighted. 1838
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1839
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1840
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1841
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1842
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the 1843
new SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, finds the 1844
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some 1845
SuperHyperClasses and some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this 1846
research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to 1847
recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1848
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, 1849
the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general 1850
results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and the 1851
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut. The clarifications, instances and 1852
literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature 1853
reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 1854
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 1855
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 1856
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 1857
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 1858
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 1859
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 1860
called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1861
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1862
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this 1863
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1864
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1865
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1866
Forms 1867
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1868
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1872
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1873
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1874
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1875
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1876
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1877
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1878
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1879
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1880
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1881
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1882
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1883
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1884
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1885
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1888
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1890
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1891
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1892
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1893
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1895
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1896
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1899
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1900
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1903
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1904
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1905
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1906
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1907
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1908
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1909
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1910
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1911
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1912
Extreme coefficient; 1913
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1914
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1915
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1917
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1918
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1919
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1923
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1924
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1925
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 1930
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1932
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1933
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1937
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1940
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1941
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1946
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1947
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1949
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1951
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1960
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1961
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1965
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1966
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1967
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1968
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1969
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1970
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1971
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1972
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 1975
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1976
SuperHyperDuality. 1981


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 2044
ESHP : (V, E). Then 2045
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 2046
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 2050
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2054
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2055
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2056
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 2057
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2068
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 2069
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2079
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 2082
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 2087
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2088
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2091
solution 2094
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2101

= {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 2104
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2105

P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2116
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2124
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 2127
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 2128
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2129

∃!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 2134
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2135
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2142
Forms 2144
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2145
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2149
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2150
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2151
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2152
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2154
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2155
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2156
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2157
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2159
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2160
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2161
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2162
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2165
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2166
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2167
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2172
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2173
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2175
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2176
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2180
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2181
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2182
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2183
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2184
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2189
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2191
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2194
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2195
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2196
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2200
coefficient; 2201
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2202
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2205
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2206
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2209
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2210
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2217
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2218
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2226
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2228
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2237
coefficient. 2238
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2242
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2243
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2244
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2245
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2246
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2247
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2248
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2249
SuperHyperJoin. 2250
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 2324
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2328
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2332

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

.
Proof. Let 2335
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2346
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 2347

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2357
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 2360
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 2365
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2366
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2369
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2370
solution 2372
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2379

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 2382
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2383

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2387
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2388
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2394
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2402

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

.
Proof. Let 2405
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2406

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2410
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2411
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2412
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2413
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2420
Forms 2422
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2423
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2427
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2428
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2429
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2430
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2432
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2433
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2434
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2435
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2437
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2438
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2439
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2440
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2443
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2445
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2448
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2450
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2451
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2458
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2459
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2460
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2461
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2467
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2469
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2470
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2478
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2480
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2485
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2487
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2488
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2495
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2496
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2504
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2506
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2515
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2520
SuperHyperPerfect. 2528
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 2602
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2606
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2610
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 2613
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2624
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2625

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2635
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 2638
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 2643
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2644
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2645
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2646
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2647
solution 2650
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2657

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 2660
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2661

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2665
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2666
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2667
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2672
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2680
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2683

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2684

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2688
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2689
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2690
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2691
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2698
Forms 2700
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2701
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2705
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2706
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2707
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2708
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2710
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2711
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2712
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2713
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2715
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2716
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2717
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2718
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2721
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2723
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2728
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2729
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2731
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2736
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2737
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2738
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2745
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2747
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2756
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2758
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2765
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2766
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2773
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2774
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2782
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2784
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2793
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2798
SuperHyperTotal. 2806
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 2880
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2884
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2888
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 2891
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 2902
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 2903
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2913
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 2916
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2921
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2922
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2925
solution 2928
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2935

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 2938
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2939

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2943
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2944
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2950
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2958
∗
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 2961
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2962

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2966
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2967
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2968
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2969
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2976
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2977
Forms 2978
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2979
SuperHyperConnected). 2980
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2984
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2985
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2986
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2987
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2988
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2989
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2991
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2992
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2993
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2994
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2995
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2996
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2998
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2999
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 3000
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 3001
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3004
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 3006
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3007
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3008
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3009
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3011
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3012
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3015
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 3016
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3019
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 3020
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 3021
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 3022
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 3023
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 3024
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 3025
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 3026
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 3028
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 3029
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3030
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 3031
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 3032
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3033
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 3036
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3039
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 3040
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3041
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3044
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3045
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3046
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3048
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3049
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3052
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3053
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3056
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3057
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3060
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3063
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3066
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3068
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3071
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3074
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3077
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3078
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3082
SuperHyperConnected. 3090
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 3164
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 3168
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3172
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 3175
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 3186
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 3187
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3197
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 3200
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3205
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3206
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3209
solution 3212
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3219
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 3222
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3227
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3228
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3234
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3242
∗
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 3245
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3247

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3250
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3251
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3252
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3253
17 Background 3261
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3262
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3263
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3264
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3265
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3266
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3267
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3268
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3269
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3270
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3271
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3272
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3273
results based on initial background. 3274
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3275
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3276
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3277
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3278
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3279
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3280
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3281
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3282
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3283
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3284
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3285
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3286
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3287
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3288
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3289
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3290
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3291
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3292
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3293
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3294
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3295
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3296
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3297
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3298
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3299
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3300
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3301
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3302
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3303
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3304
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3305
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3306
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3307
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3308
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3309
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3310
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3311
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by 3312
Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3313
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s 3314
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry 3315
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3316
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic 3317
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked 3318
Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3319
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3320
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3321
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3322
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3323
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by 3324
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3325
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3326
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3327
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3328
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry 3329
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3330
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3331
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3332
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3333
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3334
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3335
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3336
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3337
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3338
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3339
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 3340
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 3341
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by 3342
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3343
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by 3344
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3345
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 3346
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 3347
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3348
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3349
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s 3350
Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [128] by Henry Garrett 3351
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s 3352
Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and 3353
Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [129] by Henry Garrett 3354
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3355
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3356
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [130] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3357
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In 3358
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3359
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [131] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3360
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3361
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [134] by 3362
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3363
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3364
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [135] by Henry 3365
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3366
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3367
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [138] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3368
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3369
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [141] by Henry 3370
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3371
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3372
in Ref. [142] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3373
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3374
Ref. [143] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3375
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [144] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3377
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3378
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [145] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 3379
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 3380
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3381
in Ref. [146] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3382
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 3383
in Ref. [157] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries 3384
to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 3385
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [158] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3386
and [4–158], there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 3387
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research 3388
books at [159–251]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3389
readers, 4087 and 5084 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [252, 253]. 3390
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3391
proposed as book in Ref. [240] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3392
Scholar and has more than 4093 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3393
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3394
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3395
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3396
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3397
proposed as book in Ref. [241] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3398
Scholar and has more than 5090 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3399
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3400
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3401
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3402
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3403
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3404
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3405
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3406
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3407
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–158] 3408
alongside scientific research books at [159–251]. Two popular scientific research books 3409
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4093 and 5090 respectively, on neutrosophic 3410
science is on [252, 253]. 3411
References 3412
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3413
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3414
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3415
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3416
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3417
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3418
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3419
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3420
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3421
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3422
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3423
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3424
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3425
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3426
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3427
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3428
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3429
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3430
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3431
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3432
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3433
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3434
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3435
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3436
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3437
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3438
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3439
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3440
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3441
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3442
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3443
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3444
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3445
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3446
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3447
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3448
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3449
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3450
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3451
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3452
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3453
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3454
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3455
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3456
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3457
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3458
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3459
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3460
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3461
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3462
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3463
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3464
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3465
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3466
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3467
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3468
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3469
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3470
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3471
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3472
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3473
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3474
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3475
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3476
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3477
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3478
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3479
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3481
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3482
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3483
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3484
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3485
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3486
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3488
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3492
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3493
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3494
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3495
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3496
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3497
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3498
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3499
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3500
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3501
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3502
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3503
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3504
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3505
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3506
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3507
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3508
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3509
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3510
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3511
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3512
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3513
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3514
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3515
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3516
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790052). 3517
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3519
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3520
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3521
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3522
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3525
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7781476). 3526
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3527
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3528
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3531
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3532
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3534
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3536
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3537
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3538
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3540
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3543
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3544
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3545
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3546
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3547
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3549
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3552
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12400.12808). 3553
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3555
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3556
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3558
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, 3561
42. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3563
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3564
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3565
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3567
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3570
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3573
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3574
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3576
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3579
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3581
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3583
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3585
50. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3587
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3588
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3591
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3593
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3594
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3597
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3599
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3601
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3603
56. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3605
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3606
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3609
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3610
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3612
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3615
60. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3617
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3619
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3621
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3622
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3624
63. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3626
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3628
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3630
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3631
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3632
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3633
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3634
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3636
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3637
67. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3638
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3639
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3642
69. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3644
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3645
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super 3648
Returns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31147.52003). 3649
71. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3650
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3651
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3654
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3656
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3658
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3660
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3661
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3662
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3663
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3666
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3667
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3668
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3669
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3672
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3673
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3674
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3675
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3678
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3679
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3680
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3681
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3684
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3685
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3686
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3687
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3690
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3691
85. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3692
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3693
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3695
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3696
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3699
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3700
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3701
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3702
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3705
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3706
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3707
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3708
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3711
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3713
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3714
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super 3717
Infections”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19360.87048). 3718
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3719
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3720
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3722
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3723
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super 3726
Vacancy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19911.37285). 3727
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3729
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3731
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3732
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3734
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3735
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3737
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3738
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3739
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3740
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3741
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3742
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3743
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3744
103. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3746
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3747
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3748
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3749
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3750
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3751
105. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3752
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3753
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3754
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3755
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3758
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3759
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3762
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3763
108. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3764
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3766
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3767
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3770
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3771
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3774
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3775
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3776
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3777
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3778
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3779
112. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3780
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3781
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3782
113. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3783
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3784
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3785
114. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3786
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper 3787
Extensions of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3788
115. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3789
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3790
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3791
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3792
116. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3793
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3794
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3795
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3796
117. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3797
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3798
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3799
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, 3800
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3801
118. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3802
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3803
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3804
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3805
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3806
119. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3807
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3808
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3809
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3810
120. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3811
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3812
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3813
121. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3814
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3815
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3817
122. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3818
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3819
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3820
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3821
123. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3822
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3823
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3824
124. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3825
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3826
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3827
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3828
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3829
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3830
125. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3831
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3832
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3833
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3834
126. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3835
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3836
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3837
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3838
127. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3839
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3840
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3841
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3842
128. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3843
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3844
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3845
129. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3846
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3847
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3848
130. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3850
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3851
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3852
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3853
131. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3854
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3855
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3856
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3857
132. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3858
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3859
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3860
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3861
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3863
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3864
134. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3865
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3866
135. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3868
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3869
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3870
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3875
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3879
138. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3880
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3881
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3882
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3883
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3886
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3888
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3889
141. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3890
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3891
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3894
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3895
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3897
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3898
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3901
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3902
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3904
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3905
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3908
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3909
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3911
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3912
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3914
149. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3916
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3919
150. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3921
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 3924
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3931
153. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3932
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3933
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3934
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3935
154. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3936
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 3937
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3938
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3939
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3942
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3943
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3946
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3947
157. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3948
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3949
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3950
158. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3951
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3952
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3953
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3954
159. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3955
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790728). 3956
160. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3957
161. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3959
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3960
162. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3961
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3962
163. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3963
164. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3965
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3966
165. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3967
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3968
166. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3969
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3970
167. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3971
168. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3973
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3974
169. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3975
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3976
170. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3977
171. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3979
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3980
172. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3981
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3982
173. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3983
174. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3985
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3986
175. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3987
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3988
176. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3989
177. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3991
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3992
178. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3993
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3994
179. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3995
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3996
180. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3997
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3998
181. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3999
182. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4001
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4002
183. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4003
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4004
184. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4005
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4006
185. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4007
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4008
186. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4009
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4010
187. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4011
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4012
188. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4013
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4014
189. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4015
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4016
190. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4017
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4018
191. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4019
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4020
192. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4021
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4022
193. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4023
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4024
194. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4025
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4026
195. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4027
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4028
196. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4029
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4030
197. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4031
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4032
198. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4033
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4034
199. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4035
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4036
200. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4037
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4038
201. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4039
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4040
202. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4041
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4042
203. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4043
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4044
204. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4045
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4046
205. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4047
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4048
206. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4049
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4050
207. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4051
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4052
208. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4053
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4054
209. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4055
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4056
210. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4057
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4058
211. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4059
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4060
212. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4061
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4062
213. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4063
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4064
214. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4065
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4066
215. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4067
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4068
216. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4069
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4070
217. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4071
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4072
218. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4073
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4074
219. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4075
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4076
220. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4077
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4078
221. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4079
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4080
222. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4081
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4082
223. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4083
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4084
224. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4085
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4086
225. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4087
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4088
226. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4089
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4090
227. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4091
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4092
228. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4093
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4094
229. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4095
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4096
230. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4097
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4098
231. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4099
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4100
232. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4101
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4102
233. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4103
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4104
234. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4105
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4106
235. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4107
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4108
236. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4109
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4110
237. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4111
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4112
238. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4113
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4114
239. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4115
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4116
240. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4117
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4118
241. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4119
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4120
242. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4121
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4122
243. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4123
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4124
244. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4125
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4126
245. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4127
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4128
246. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4129
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4130
247. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4131
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4132
248. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4133
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4134
249. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4135
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4136
250. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4137
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4138
251. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4139
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4140
252. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4141
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4142
253. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4143
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4144
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

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 · April 2023

413 PUBLICATIONS 9,140 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

On Combinatorics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper 3

Hamper On Super Hammy 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-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 10

(NSHG) S is a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 11

SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 12

is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if the following expression is 13

called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 14

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 16

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

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

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 19

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut criteria holds 21

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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 26

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 28

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

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 30

if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 31

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 33

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 34

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

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 36

conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 37

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 38

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 39

if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, Neutrosophic 40

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 42

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 43

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 45

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 46

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 47

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 48

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 49

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 52

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 53

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

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 55

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

Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 57

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 58

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 59

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut 60

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 61

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut, and Neutrosophic 64

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Cut and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 65

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 66

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 67

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 68