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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/369754406
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7796334
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
419 PUBLICATIONS 9,700 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic Graphs View project
On Combinatorics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 03 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-Neighbor As Hyper 3
Nebbish On Super Nebulous 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S 10
is a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11
V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 14
∀N (Ea ) ∈ C : C is
a SuperHyperCycle and it has
the maximum number of SuperHyperVertices;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 16
∀N (Ea ) ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 19
∀N (Va ) ∈ C : C is
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 21
∀N (Va ) ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 23
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 24
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic 25
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor). 26
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 27
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 28
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 32
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 33
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive 34
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 35
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; a Neutrosophic 36
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 41
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 42
Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 43
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 44
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 45
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 46
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 47
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 48
and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 49
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 50
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 51
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 52
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 53
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 54
coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if 55
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 56
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 57
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 58
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 59
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 60
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 61
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic 62
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 63
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; and the Neutrosophic power is 64
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 65
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 66
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 69
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 70
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive 71
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 72
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; a Neutrosophic 73
V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 74
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 78
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 79
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 82
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 83
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 84
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 85
and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 86
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an 88
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 89
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 90
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 91
coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if 92
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 94
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 95
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 96
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 97
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 98
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; and the Neutrosophic power is 101
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific research, new setting is 102
introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and 103
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Two different types of 104
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 105
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 106
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 107
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 108
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 109
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 110
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 111
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 112
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 113
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 114
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 115
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 116
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 117
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 118
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 119
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 120
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 121
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 122
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 123
δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 124
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 125
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 126
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 127
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 128
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is 129
a maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 130
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 131
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 132
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 133
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 134
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 135
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 136
version of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor . Since there’s more ways to get 137
type-results to make a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor more understandable. For the 138
sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, there’s a need to “redefine” 139
the notion of a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 140
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 141
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 142
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 143
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values 144
of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 145
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & 146
The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 147
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of 148
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 149
“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get 150
structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 151
SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor . It’s the main. It’ll be 152
disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of 153
SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor until the 154
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, then it’s officially called a 155
“SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” but otherwise, it isn’t a 156
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor . There are some instances about the clarifications for 157
the main definition titled a “SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor ”. These two examples get 158
more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of 159
the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor . For the sake of 160
having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, there’s a need to “redefine” the 161
notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” and a “Neutrosophic 162
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 163
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 164
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 165
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 166
Table holds. And a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 167
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 168
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 169
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 170
more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 172
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 173
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 174
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor”, “Neutrosophic 175
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 176
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 177
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” 178
where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the 179
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices 180
from a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor .] SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor . A graph is 181
a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 182
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 183
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 184
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 185
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 186
given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 187
amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 188
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two 189
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s 190
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these 191
SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 192
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 193
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 194
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 195
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 196
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 197
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 198
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 199
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 200
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 201
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 202
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 203
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 204
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 205
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 206
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 207
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 208
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 209
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 210
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 211
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 212
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 213
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 214
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, 215
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 216
either the longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor or the strongest 217
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 218
longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, called SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, and the 219
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, called Neutrosophic 220
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 221
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s 222
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style 223
of a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. There isn’t any formation of any 224
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 225
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 226
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor theory, 227
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 228
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 229
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 230
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 231
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 232
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 233
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 234
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 235
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 236
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 237
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 238
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 239
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 240
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 241
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 242
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 243
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 244
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 245
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 246
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 247
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 248
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 249
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 250
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 251
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 252
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 253
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 254
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 255
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 256
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 257
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 258
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 259
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 260
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 261
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 262
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 263
formally called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” in the themes of jargons and 264
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 265
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 266
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 267
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 268
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 269
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 270
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 271
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 272
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 273
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 274
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 275
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, 276
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 277
either the optimal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor or the Neutrosophic 278
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 279
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 280
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 281
since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 282
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. There isn’t any formation of any 283
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 284
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 285
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 286
find the “ amount of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” of either individual of cells or the 287
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 288
of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 289
group of cells? 290
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 291
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 292
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 293
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 294
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” 295
on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 296
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 297
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 298
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 299
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 300
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 301
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 302
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 303
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 304
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 305
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 306
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 307
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 308
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, are figured out in sections “ 309
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor”. 310
In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor to make sense 311
about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 312
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 313
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 314
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going 315
back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 316
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 317
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 318
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 319
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 320
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 321
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 322
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor”, 323
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 324
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 325
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 326
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 327
presented in section, “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor”. The keyword of this research 328
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 329
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 330
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 331
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 332
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 333
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 334
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 335
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 336
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 337
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 338
Research On the Redeemed Ways 339
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 340
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [161],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 341
Set](Ref. [161],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 342
(NSHG)](Ref. [161],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 343
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [161],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [161], 344
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 345
(NSHG)](Ref. [161],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 346
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [161],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 347
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [161],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 348
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [161]. 349
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 350
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 351
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [161],Definition 2.1,p.1). 352
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor of points (objects) with generic elements in X

denoted by x; then the Neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 353
+
]− 0, 1 [. 354
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [161],Definition 2.2,p.2). 355
Let X be a Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor of points (objects) with generic elements in X

denoted by x. A single valued Neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by
truth-membership function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a
falsity-membership function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1].
A SVNS A can be written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 3.3. The degree of truth-membership,

indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued Neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [161],Definition 356
2.5,p.2). 357
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 358
pair S = (V, E), where 359
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 360
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 361
1, 2, . . . , n); 362
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 363
V; 364
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 365
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 366
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 367
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 368
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 369
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 370
(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 . 371
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 372
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 373
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 374
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 375
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 376
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 377
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 378
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 379
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 380
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 381
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 382
(Ref. [161],Definition 2.7,p.3). 383
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 384
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 385
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 386
characterized as follow-up items. 387
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 388
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 389
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 390
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 391
HyperEdge; 392
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 393
SuperEdge; 394
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 395
SuperHyperEdge. 396
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 397
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 398
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [161], Definition 2.7, p.3). 399
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 400
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 401
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 402
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 403
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 404
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 405
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)). 406
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 407
pair S = (V, E), where 408
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 409
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 410
1, 2, . . . , n); 411
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 412
V; 413
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 414
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 415
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 416
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 417
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 418
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ).
P
(viii) i0 419
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 420
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 421
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 422
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 423
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 424
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 425
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 426
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 427
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 428
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 429
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 430
(Ref. [161],Definition 2.7,p.3). 431
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 432
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 433
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 434
characterized as follow-up items. 435
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 436
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 437
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 438
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 439
HyperEdge; 440
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 441
SuperEdge; 442
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 443
SuperHyperEdge. 444
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 445
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 446
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 447
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 448
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 449
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 450
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 451
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 452
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 453
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 454
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 455
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 456
given SuperHyperEdges; 457
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 458
SuperHyperEdges; 459
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 460
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 461
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 462
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 463
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 464
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 465
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 466
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 467
common SuperVertex. 468
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 469
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 470
of following conditions hold: 471
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 478
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 479
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 480
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 481
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 482
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. 483
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 484
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 485
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 486
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 487
SuperHyperPath . 488
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 489
(Ref. [161],Definition 5.3,p.7). 490
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 491
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 492
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 493
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 494
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 495
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 496
(NSHE)). (Ref. [161],Definition 5.4,p.7). 497
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 498
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 499
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 500
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 501
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 502
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 503
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 504
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 506
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 507
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 509
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 510
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 511
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 512
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 513
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor). 514
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 516
either V 0 or E 0 is called 517
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if the following expression 518
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 519
∀N (Ea ) ∈ C : C is
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if the following expression 520
is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 521
∀N (Ea ) ∈ C : C is
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 522
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if the following expression 523
is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 524
∀N (Va ) ∈ C : C is
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if the following 525
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 526
criteria holds 527
∀N (Va ) ∈ C : C is
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 528
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 529
e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 530
re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 531
v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic 532
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 533
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor). 534
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 537
rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 541
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 542
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 543
SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 544
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 545
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 546
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of 547
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 548
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 552
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 553
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 556
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if 557
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 562
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 563
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 564
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 565
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded 567
to its Extreme coefficient; 568
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 569
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 570
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 575
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 576
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 577
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive 578
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 579
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; and the 580
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 581
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 582
SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 589
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 591
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of 592
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 593
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 597
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 598
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial 602
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 603
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 609
Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded 612
to its Extreme coefficient; 613
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 614
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 615
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 622
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; and the 625
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 626
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor). 627
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 628
(i) an δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 629
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor such that either of the following expressions hold 630
for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 631
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 632
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 633
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is a Neutrosophic kind 634
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor such that either of the following 635
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 636
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 637
|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. 638
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 639
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 640
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, there’s a 641
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 642
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 643
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 644
assign to the values. 645
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 646
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 647
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 648
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 649
understandable. 650
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 651
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 652
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 653
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 654
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 655
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 656
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 657
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 658
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 659
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 660
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor more Neutrosophicly understandable. 661
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, there’s a 662
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic 663
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 664
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 665
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 666
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. It’s redefined a 667
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if the Table (3) holds. 668

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But As Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 669
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 670
Forms 671
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 672
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V is 674
called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 675
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 676
probability of A. 677
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 678
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 680
called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 681
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 682
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 683
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 684
criteria 685
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)

Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 686
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Any k-function Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 688
like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function 689
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 690
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 691
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 692
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 694
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 695
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 696
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 697
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. A Neutrosophic number is called 699
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 700
Crossing criteria 701
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.

Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 702
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let m and n propose 703
special Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Then with m ≥ 4n, 704
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 705
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 706
Neutrosophic independently with probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor p := 4n/m, and set 707
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 708
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: 709
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
710
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 711
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let P be a 712
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 713
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 714
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 715
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 716
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between conseNeighborive 717
points on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 718
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 719
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 720
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 721
again l < 32n2 /k 3 . 722
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let P be a 724
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 725
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 726
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 727
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 728
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 729
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 730
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
731
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 732
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between conseNeighborive SuperHyperPoints 733
on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 734
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 735
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 736
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 737
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 738
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 739
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 740
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 741
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 742
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let X be a 743
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 744
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. 745
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 746
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let Xn be a 747
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 748
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 749
Proof. 750
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. A special 752
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 753
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. A special SuperHyperGraph 755
in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 756
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 757
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 758
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 759
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 760
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 761
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 762
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 763
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 764
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: 765
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 766
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 767
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 768
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 769
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 770
stability number at most k. 771
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 772
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 774
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 775
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 776
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let X be a 778
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 779
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let X be a Neutrosophic 781
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 782
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
783
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let Xn be a 785
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 786
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 787
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Set X := Xn and 789
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 790
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 791
when Xn = 0. 792
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 794
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 795
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 796
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 797
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. As in the proof of related 799
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 800
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 802
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 803
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 804
or 805
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 806
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. The latter is 808
straightforward. 809
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 810
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let P be a monotone property of 812
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 813
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 814
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 815
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 816
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 817
S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 819
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 820
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 821
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Let F be a 823
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 824
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 825
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 826
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. The latter is 828
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 830
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 831
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 832
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 833
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 834
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 835
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 836
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 837
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 838
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 839
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 840
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 841
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor

= {E4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial
= z 5 + 2z 3 .
842
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 845
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 846
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 847
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 848
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 849
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 850
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 851

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
= z 5 + z 3 + z.

852
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 855

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {V1 , V2 , V3 }.
= z8 + z4 + z3.
856

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


860

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

864

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
868

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

872

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

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



880

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
884

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)
888

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
892

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
896

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
900

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
904

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
908

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
912

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
916

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
920

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

(16.3)
924

= {E1 , E2 }.
= z 10 + z 2 .
= {VE2 }.
= z 5 + 2z 3 + 7z.
928

(16.3)

(16.3)

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
932
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 933
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 934
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if for any of them, and any of other 935
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 936
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 937
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 938
amount of them. 939
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 940
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 941
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 942
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor minus all Neutrosophic 943
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 944
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 945
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, minus 946
all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 947
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-Neighbor is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 948
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 949
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 950
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 951
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 952
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in 953
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 954
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 955
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 956
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor with the least Neutrosophic 957
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 958
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 959
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 960
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−N eighbor = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−N eighbor = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. In other words, the least cardinality, the 961
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is 962
the cardinality of 963
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−N eighbor = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }

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

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor since neither amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

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

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

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

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

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There
are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting
of the graph titled path and cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction
star as the examples-classes, are well-known classes in that setting and they could be
considered as the examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 964
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 965
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 966
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 967
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 968
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 969
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 970
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 971
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor decorates the

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Neutrosophic connections so
as this Neutrosophic style implies different versions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
with the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Neutrosophic bound is to have the
maximum Neutrosophic groups of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have perfect
Neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the

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

Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has only some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Neutrosophic amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The Neutrosophic cardinality of this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the Neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
Neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that
Contains some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 972
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 973
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 974
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 975
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 976
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-Neighbor. Those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Neutrosophic
style-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor
is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor

but with slightly differences in the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality amid those
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,

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

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong
to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 977
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
978
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 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-Neighbor,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 979
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 980
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 981
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 982
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 983
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in 984
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 985
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 986
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic 987
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 988
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 989
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 990
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 991
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 992
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 993
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 994
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 995
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 996
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 997
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 998
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 999
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor where 1000
the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 1001
literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. The SuperHyperNotions of 1002
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 1003
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1004
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1005
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1006
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 1007
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 1008
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1009
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1010
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1011
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1012
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct 1013
types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1014
Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Neutrosophic 1015
SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the interior 1016
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the 1017
embedded Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, there’s the usage of exterior Neutrosophic 1018
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 1019
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Neutrosophic 1020
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1021
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in 1022
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1023
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. The Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor with the exclusion of 1024
the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1025
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor with 1026
the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1027
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. To sum them up, in a 1028
connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 1029
one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1030
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1031
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor 1032
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique 1033
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic 1034
SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, minus all 1035
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1036
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor has two titles. a 1037
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1038
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1039
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor with that 1040
quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 1041
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1042
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1043
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbors for all Neutrosophic 1044
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1045
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1046
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, again and more in the operations of 1047
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbors acted on the all possible 1048
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic 1049
number. This Neutrosophic number is 1050
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbors. 1051
Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 1052
be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic 1053
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Then 1054
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is 1055
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1056
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1057
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1058
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1059
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor poses the upcoming expressions. 1060
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1061
= max zNeutrosophic Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1062

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1063


1064
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1065

1066

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1067
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1068
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1069
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1070
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” but, precisely, it’s the 1071
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” since “Neutrosophic 1072
Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” happens “Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” in a 1073
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1074
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic 1075
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1076
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1077
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1078
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor”, 1079
and “Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” are up. 1080
Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1081
GNeutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1082
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and the new terms 1083
are up. 1084

∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1085
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1086
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1087
And with go back to initial structure, 1088


1089
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1090
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

1091

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1092
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1093
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1094
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1095
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1096
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1097
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1098
are coming up. 1099
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1100
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1101
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-Neighbor is related to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet since they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the
non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 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-Neighbor C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1102
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1103
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1104
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1105
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and it’s an 1106
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Since it’s 1107
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-Neighbor.
There isn’t only less than two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor,
is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1108
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1109
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1110
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1111
“Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” 1112
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1113
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 1114
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-Neighbor amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1115
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-Neighbor. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1116
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1117
quasi-R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1118
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1119
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1120
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1121
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1122
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1123
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1124
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1125
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1126
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1127
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1128
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1129
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1130
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1131
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1132
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1133
R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Since it doesn’t have 1134
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1135
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1136
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1137
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1138
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1139
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1140
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1141
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1142
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1143
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1144
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1145
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1146
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1147
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1148
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, VESHE is up. The obvious 1149
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 1150
VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1151
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1152
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1153
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1154
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1155
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1156
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1158
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1159
Neutrosophic R-Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1160
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1161
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1162
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1163
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1164
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1165
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1166
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, is up. There’s neither empty 1167
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1168
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1169
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. The 1170
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1171
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−N eighbor

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−N eighbor = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Hamiltonian−Cycle−N eighborSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1172
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1173
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1174

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1175
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1176
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1178
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1179
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1180
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 1182
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1183
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two Neutrosophic 1184
SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1185

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1187
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1188
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1189
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1190

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1191
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1192

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1194
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1195
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1196
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1197
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and it’s an 1198
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Since it’s 1199
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1201
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1202
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1203
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1204
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1205

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic ,
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 1206

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1207
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, not: 1208

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1209

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1210
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1211
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1212
“Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” 1213
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1214
Neutrosophic Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor , 1215
is only and only 1216

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1217
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1218
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1219
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1220
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1221
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1222
Then 1223

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1224
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1225
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 1226
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1227
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 1228
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. The 1229
latter is straightforward. 1230
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1231
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1232
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1233
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1234
Then 1235

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
1236
Proof. Let 1237
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in the Example (16.5)
1238
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1239
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1240

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1244
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1245
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1246
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1248
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

Then 1249

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1250
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1251
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1252
There’s a new way to redefine as 1253

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1257
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1258
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1259
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1260
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic 1261
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1263
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1264

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1265
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1266
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1267
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1268

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1271
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1272
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1273
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1274
the 1275
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1276
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1277
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1278
solution 1279
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1280
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1281
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1282
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1283
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1284
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1285
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1286
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1287
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1288

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1289
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1290
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 1292

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1295
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1296
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1297
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1298
the 1299
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1300
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1301
solution 1303
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1305
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1306
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1307
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1308
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1309
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1310
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1311
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1312
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 1313

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {CEN T ER}.
= za.
Proof. Let 1314
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in the Example (16.13)
1315
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1317

latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1320
Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1321
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor could be applied. The unique embedded 1322
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor proposes some longest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 1323
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1324
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1326
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1327
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1328
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1329
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1331
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1332
For the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, and 1333
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, some general results are introduced. 1334
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is 1335
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1336
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Then 1337
N eutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − N eighbor =

{theSuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − N eighborof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperHamiltonian − Cycle − N eighbor
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperHamiltonian−Cycle−N eighbor. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1338
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1339
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1340
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1341
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and 1342
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor coincide. 1343
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1345
Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if and only if it’s a 1346
of the alphabet. Then a conseNeighborive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1349
strongest SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if and only if it’s a longest 1350
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1352
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 1353
is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and reversely. 1354
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic 1355
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1356
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. 1357
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is its SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 1358
and reversely. 1359
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1360
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1361
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor isn’t well-defined. 1362
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1363
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1364
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1368
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1369
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1371
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is well-defined if and only if its 1372
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is well-defined. 1373
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1374
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is well-defined if and only if its 1375
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic 1379
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor is well-defined if and only if its 1380
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1382
is 1383
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1384
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1385
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1386
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1387
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1388
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1389
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1390
∅ is 1391
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1392
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1393
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1394
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1395
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1396
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1397
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1398
independent SuperHyperSet is 1399
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1400
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1401
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1402
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1403
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1404
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1405
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1406
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1407
a maximal 1408
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1409
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1410
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1411
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1412
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1413
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1414
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1415
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1416
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1417
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1418
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1419
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1420
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1421
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1422
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1423
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1424
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1426
number of 1427
(i) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1428
(ii) : the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1429
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1430
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1431
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1432
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1433
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1434
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1435
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1437
(i) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1438
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1439
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1440
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1441
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1442
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1443
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1444
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1447
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1448
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1449
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1450
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1454
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1455
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1456
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1459
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1460
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1461
is a 1462
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1466
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1467
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1468
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1471
number of 1472
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1476
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1477
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1478
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1479
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1480
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1481
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1483
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1484
(iv) : SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1488
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1489
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1490
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1491
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1492
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1493
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1494
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1495
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1499
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1501
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1503
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1504
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1508
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1509
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1510
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1512
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1514
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1515
of a dual 1516
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1520
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1521
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1522
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1524
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1525
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1526
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1532
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1533
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1534
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1535
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1536
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1537
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1538
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1539
such that 1540
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1541
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1542
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1543
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, then 1544
(i) S is SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor set; 1545
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1546
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1547
Then 1548
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1549
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1550
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1551
which is connected. Then 1552
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1553
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1554
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1555
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1556
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1558
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1559
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1560
a dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1561
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1562
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1563
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1565
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1566
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1567
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1568
dual SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1569
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Then 1570
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1571
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1573
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1574
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1575
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1576
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Then 1578
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1579
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1581
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1582
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1583
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1585
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1586
(ii) Γ = 1; 1587
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1588
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1589
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1591
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1592
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1593
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1594
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1595
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1596
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1597
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1598
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1599
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1601
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1602
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1603
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1605
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1606
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1608

bnc ; 1609
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1610
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1612
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1613
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1614
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor for N SHF; 1615
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1616
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1617
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1618
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor for N SHF : (V, E). 1619
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1620
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1621
SuperHyperSet. Then 1622
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1623
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor for N SHF; 1624
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1625
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1626
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1627
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1629
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1630
SuperHyperSet. Then 1631
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1632
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor for N SHF : (V, E); 1633
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1634

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1635
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1636
Then following statements hold; 1639
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1640
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, then S is an 1641
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1642
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1643
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, then S is a dual 1644
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1645
Then following statements hold; 1647
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1648
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, then S is an 1649
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1650
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1651
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, then S is a dual 1652
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1653
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1654
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1655
statements hold; 1656
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1657
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1658
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1659
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1661
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1663
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1664
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1665
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1666
statements hold; 1667
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1668
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1670
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1672
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1674
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1675
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1677
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1678
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1679
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1681
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1683
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1686
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1688
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1689
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1690
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1692
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1694
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; 1695
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1697
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1699
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Then following statements hold; 1700
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1701
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1703
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1705
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1708
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1710
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. Then following statements hold; 1711
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1712
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1714
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1716
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1719
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1720
Neutrosophic Recognition 1721
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure out 1722
what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of this 1723
Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1724
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1725
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1726
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1727
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1728
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1729
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1730
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1731
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1732
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1733
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1734
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1735
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1736
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened 1737
and what’s done. 1738
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, which 1739
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic models. 1740
The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 1741
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic 1742
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, SuperHyperStar, 1743
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1744
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor or the Neutrosophic 1745
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 1746
SuperHyperModels. 1747
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1748
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1749
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1750
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1751
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1752
featured. 1753
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1754
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1755
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1756
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1757
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1758
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1760
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1761
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1762
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1763
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1764
featured. 1765
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1766
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1767
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1768
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1769
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1770
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1772
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1773
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1774
The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 1775
are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1776
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1777
recognitions? 1778
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1779
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor? 1780
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1781
compute them? 1782
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1783
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor? 1784
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and the Neutrosophic 1785
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1786
they’re based on SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, are there else? 1787
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1788
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1789
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1790
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1791
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1792
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1793
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1794
highlighted. 1795
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1796
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1797
SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition 1798
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. 1799
Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1800
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, finds the convenient 1801
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some 1802
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1803
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1804
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1805
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1806
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1807
the SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. 1808
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1809
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the 1810
results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1811
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of 1812
this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups 1813
of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 1814
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 1815
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 1816
called “ SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 1817
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1818
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1819
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1820
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1821
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1822
Forms 1823
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1824
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1828
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1829
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1830
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1831
|Ei |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1832
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1833
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1834
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1835
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1836
|Vi |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPIC CARDINALITY ; 1837
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1838
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1839
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1840
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1841
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1844
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1846
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1847
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1848
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1849
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1851
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1852
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1855
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1856
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1859
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1860
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1861
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1862
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1863
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1865
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1866
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 1867
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1868
Extreme coefficient; 1869
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1870
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1871
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1873
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1874
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1875
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1879
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1880
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1881
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 1886
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1888
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1889
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1893
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1896
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1897
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1902
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive 1903
the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1905
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1907
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1916
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1917
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1921
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1922
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1923
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1924
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1925
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1926
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1927
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1928
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 1931
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1932
SuperHyperDuality. 1937


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 2000
ESHP : (V, E). Then 2001
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 2002
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 2006
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2010
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2011
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2012
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 2013
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2024
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 2025
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2035
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 2038
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 2043
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2044
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2045
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2046
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2047
solution 2050
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2057

= {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 2060
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2061

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2067
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2072
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2080
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 2083
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 2084
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2085

∃!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 2090
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2091
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2098
Forms 2100
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2101
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2105
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2106
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2107
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2108
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2110
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2111
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2112
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2113
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2115
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2116
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2117
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2118
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2121
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2122
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2123
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2128
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2129
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2131
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2132
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2136
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2137
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2138
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2139
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2140
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2145
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2147
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2150
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2151
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2152
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2156
coefficient; 2157
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2158
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2161
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2162
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2165
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2166
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2173
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2174
the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2182
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2184
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2193
coefficient. 2194
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2198
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2199
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2200
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2201
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2202
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2203
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2204
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2205
SuperHyperJoin. 2206
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 2280
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2284
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2288

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

.
Proof. Let 2291
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2302
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 2303

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2313
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 2316
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 2321
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2322
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2323
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2325
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2326
solution 2328
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2335

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

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2343
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2344
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2345
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2350
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2358

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

.
Proof. Let 2361
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2362

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2366
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2367
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2368
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2369
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2376
Forms 2378
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2379
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2383
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2384
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2385
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2386
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2388
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2389
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2390
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2391
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2393
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2394
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2395
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2396
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2399
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2401
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2404
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2406
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2407
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2414
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2415
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2416
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2417
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2423
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2425
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2426
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2434
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2436
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2441
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2443
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2444
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2451
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2452
the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2460
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2462
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2471
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2476
SuperHyperPerfect. 2484
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 2558
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2562
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2566
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 2569
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2580
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2581

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2591
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 2594
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 2599
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2600
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2601
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2602
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2603
solution 2606
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2613

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 2616
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2617

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2621
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2622
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2623
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2628
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2636
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2639

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2640

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2644
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2645
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2646
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2647
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2654
Forms 2656
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2657
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2661
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2662
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2663
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2664
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2666
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2667
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2668
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2669
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2671
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2672
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2673
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2674
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2677
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2679
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2684
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2685
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2687
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2692
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2693
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2694
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2701
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2703
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2712
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2714
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2721
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2722
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2729
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2730
the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2738
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2740
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2749
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2754
SuperHyperTotal. 2762
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 2836
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2840
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2844
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 2847
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 2858
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 2859
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2869
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 2872
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2877
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2878
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2881
solution 2884
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2891

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 2894
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2895

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2899
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2900
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2906
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2914
∗
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 2917
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2918

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2922
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2923
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2924
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2925
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2932
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2933
Forms 2934
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2935
SuperHyperConnected). 2936
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2940
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2941
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2942
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2943
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2944
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2945
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2947
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2948
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2949
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2950
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2951
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2952
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2954
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2955
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2956
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2957
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2960
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2962
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2963
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2964
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 2965
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2967
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2968
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2971
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2972
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2975
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2976
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2977
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2978
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2979
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2980
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2981
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2982
Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2983
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2984
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2985
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2986
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2987
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2988
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2989
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2992
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2995
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2996
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2997
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3000
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3001
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the conseNeighborive Extreme sequence of 3002
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3004
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3005
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3008
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3009
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3012
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3013
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3016
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3019
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3022
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3024
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3027
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3030
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3033
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3034
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3038
SuperHyperConnected. 3046
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 3120
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 3124
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3128
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 3131
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 3142
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 3143
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3153
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 3156
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3161
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3162
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3165
solution 3168
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3175
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 3178
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3183
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3184
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3190
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3198
∗
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 3201
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3203

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3206
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3207
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3208
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3209
17 Background 3217
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3218
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3219
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3220
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3221
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 3222
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3223
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3224
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3225
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3226
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 3227
06-14. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3228
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3229
results based on initial background. 3230
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and 3231
Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in 3232
Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3233
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3234
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using 3235
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3236
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and 3237
Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques 3238
Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article studies 3239
deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3240
the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3241
SuperHyperNumbers. 3242
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3243
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3244
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 3245
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3246
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3247
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3248
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3249
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3250
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3251
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3252
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3253
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3254
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3255
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3256
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett 3257
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3258
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3259
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3260
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3261
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by 3262
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3263
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3264
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3265
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3266
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3267
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry 3268
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3269
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3270
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3271
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3272
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3273
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3274
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3275
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3276
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3277
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3278
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3279
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3280
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3281
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 3282
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3283
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett 3284
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3285
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3286
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3287
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3288
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3289
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3290
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [19] by 3291
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3292
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [20] by 3293
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3294
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 3295
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related 3296
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3297
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3298
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3299
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3300
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3301
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3302
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3303
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3304
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3305
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [131] by Henry 3306
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3307
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3308
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [132] by Henry Garrett 3309
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3310
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3311
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [133] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3312
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3313
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3314
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [134] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3315
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3316
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [137] by 3317
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3318
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3319
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [138] by Henry 3320
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3321
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3322
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [141] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3323
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3324
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [144] by Henry 3325
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3326
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3327
in Ref. [145] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3328
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3329
Ref. [146] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3330
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3331
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [147] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3332
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3333
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [148] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3334
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3335
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [149] by Henry Garrett 3336
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3337
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [160] by Henry 3338
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3339
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3340
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [161] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–161], there 3341
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3342
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books at [162–256]. 3343
Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4190 and 3344
5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [257, 258]. 3345
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3346
proposed as book in Ref. [245] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3347
Scholar and has more than 4190 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3348
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3349
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3350
theory. 3351
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3352
proposed as book in Ref. [246] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3353
Scholar and has more than 5189 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3354
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3355
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3356
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3357
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3358
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3359
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3360
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3361
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in SuperHyperGraphs 3362
theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–161] alongside scientific 3363
research books at [162–256]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms 3364
of high readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [257, 258]. 3365
References 3366
1. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3367
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3368
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3369
2. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3370
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3371
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3372
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3373
3. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3374
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3375
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3376
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3377
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3378
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3379
4. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancers Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3380
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3381
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3382
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3383
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by-eulerian- 3384
super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3385
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3386
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3387
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3388
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3389
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3390
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3391
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3392
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3393
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3394
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3395
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3396
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3397
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3398
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3399
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3400
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3401
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3402
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3403
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3404
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3405
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3406
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3407
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3408
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3409
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3410
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3411
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3412
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3413
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3414
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3415
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3416
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3417
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3418
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3419
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3420
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3421
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3422
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3423
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3424
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3425
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3426
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3427
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3428
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3429
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3430
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3431
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3432
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3433
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3434
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3435
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3436
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3437
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3438
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3439
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3440
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3442
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3446
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3447
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3448
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3449
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3450
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3451
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3452
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3453
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3454
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3455
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3456
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3457
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3458
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3459
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3460
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3461
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3462
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3463
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3464
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3465
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3466
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3467
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3468
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3470
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3471
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3472
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3473
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791982). 3474
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3476
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7790026). 3477
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3478
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3479
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3482
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7787066). 3483
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3484
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3485
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3488
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7781476). 3489
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3490
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3491
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3494
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7777857). 3495
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3497
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3499
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3500
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3501
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3503
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3506
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3507
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3508
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3509
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3510
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3512
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3515
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3518
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3519
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3521
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3522
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3524
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3525
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3526
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3527
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3528
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3530
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3533
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3536
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3537
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3539
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3542
51. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3544
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3546
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3548
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3550
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3551
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3554
55. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3556
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3557
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3560
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3562
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3564
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3566
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3568
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3569
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3572
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3573
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3575
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3578
63. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3580
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3582
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3584
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3585
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3587
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3589
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3591
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark”, ResearchGate 3593
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3594
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3595
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3596
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3597
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3599
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3600
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3601
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3602
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3605
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3607
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3608
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3611
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3613
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3614
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3617
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3619
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3621
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3623
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3624
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3625
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3626
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3629
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3630
80. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3631
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3632
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3635
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3636
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3637
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3638
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3641
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3642
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3643
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3644
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3647
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3648
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3649
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3650
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3653
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3654
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3655
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3656
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3658
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3659
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3662
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3663
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3664
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3665
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3668
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3669
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3670
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3671
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3674
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3676
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3677
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3680
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3682
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3683
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3685
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3686
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3689
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3692
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3694
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3695
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3697
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3698
103. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3700
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3701
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3702
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3703
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3704
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3705
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3706
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3707
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3709
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3710
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3711
107. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3712
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3713
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3714
108. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3715
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3716
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3717
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3718
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3721
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3722
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3725
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3726
111. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3727
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3729
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3730
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3733
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3734
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3737
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3738
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3739
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3740
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3741
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3742
115. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3743
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3744
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3745
116. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3746
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3747
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3748
117. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3749
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3750
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3751
118. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3752
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3753
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3754
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3755
119. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3756
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3757
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3758
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3759
120. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3760
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3761
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3762
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3763
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3764
121. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3765
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3766
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3767
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3768
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3769
122. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3770
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3771
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3772
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3773
123. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3774
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3775
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3776
124. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3777
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3778
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3780
125. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3781
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3782
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3783
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3784
126. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3785
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3786
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3787
127. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3788
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3789
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3790
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3791
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3792
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3793
128. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3794
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3795
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3796
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3797
129. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3798
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3799
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3800
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3801
130. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3802
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3803
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3804
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3805
131. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3806
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3807
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3808
132. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3809
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3810
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3811
133. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3813
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3814
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3815
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3816
134. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3817
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3818
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3819
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3820
135. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3821
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3822
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3823
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3824
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3826
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3827
137. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3828
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3829
138. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3831
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3832
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3833
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3838
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3842
141. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3843
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3844
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3845
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3846
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3849
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3851
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3852
144. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3853
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3854
In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3858
10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3859
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3861
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3862
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3865
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3866
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3868
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3869
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3872
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3873
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3875
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3876
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3878
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3883
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3884
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3888
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3889
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3892
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3895
156. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3896
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3897
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3898
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3899
157. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3900
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3901
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3902
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3903
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3906
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3907
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3910
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3911
160. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 3912
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 3913
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3914
161. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3915
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3916
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3917
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3918
162. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3919
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793875). 3920
163. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3921
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7792307). 3922
164. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3923
165. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3925
166. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3927
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3928
167. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3929
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3930
168. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3931
169. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3933
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3934
170. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3935
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3936
171. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3937
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3938
172. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3939
173. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3941
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3942
174. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3943
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3944
175. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3945
176. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3947
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3948
177. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3949
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3950
178. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3951
179. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3953
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3954
180. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3955
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3956
181. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3957
182. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3959
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3960
183. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3961
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3962
184. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3963
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3964
185. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3965
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3966
186. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3967
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 3968
187. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3969
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3970
188. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3971
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3972
189. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3973
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3974
190. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3975
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3976
191. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3977
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3978
192. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3979
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3980
193. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3981
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3982
194. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3983
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3984
195. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3985
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3986
196. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3987
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3988
197. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3989
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3990
198. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3991
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3992
199. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3993
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3994
200. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3995
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3996
201. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3997
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3998
202. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3999
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4000
203. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4001
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4002
204. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4003
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4004
205. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4005
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4006
206. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4007
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4008
207. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4009
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4010
208. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4011
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4012
209. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4013
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4014
210. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4015
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4016
211. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4017
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4018
212. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4019
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4020
213. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4021
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4022
214. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4023
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4024
215. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4025
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4026
216. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4027
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4028
217. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4029
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4030
218. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4031
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4032
219. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4033
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4034
220. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4035
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4036
221. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4037
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4038
222. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4039
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4040
223. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4041
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4042
224. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4043
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4044
225. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4045
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4046
226. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4047
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4048
227. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4049
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4050
228. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4051
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4052
229. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4053
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4054
230. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4055
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4056
231. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4057
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4058
232. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4059
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4060
233. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4061
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4062
234. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4063
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4064
235. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4065
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4066
236. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4067
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4068
237. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4069
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4070
238. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4071
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4072
239. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4073
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4074
240. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4075
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4076
241. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4077
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4078
242. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4079
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4080
243. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4081
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4082
244. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4083
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4084
245. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4085
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4086
246. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4087
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4088
247. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4089
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4090
248. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4091
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4092
249. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4093
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4094
250. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4095
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4096
251. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4097
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4098
252. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4099
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4100
253. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4101
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4102
254. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4103
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4104
255. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4105
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4106
256. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4107
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4108
257. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4109
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4110
258. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4111
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4112
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · April 2023

419 PUBLICATIONS 9,700 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic Graphs 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-Neighbor As Hyper 3

Nebbish On Super Nebulous 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S 10

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

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

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 14

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 16

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

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

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 19

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor criteria holds 21

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

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

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 24

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic 25

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor). 26

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

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

Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 29

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 30

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic 31

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

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

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

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 35

that they form the Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; a Neutrosophic 36

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor if it’s either of Neutrosophic 37

e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 38

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic 39

rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 40

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 42

Neutrosophic cardinality conseNeighborive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 43

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 44

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; an Extreme SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 45

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 46

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 47

v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor 48

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 50

number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 51

Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality conseNeighborive Extreme 52

SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 54

coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor SuperHyperPolynomial if 55

it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic 56

re-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor, 57

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperHamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 58

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

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 60

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 61