New Ideas On Super Gab by Hyper Gape of Edge-Gap in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/370658916
New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In Cancer's Recognition

With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · May 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
474 PUBLICATIONS 16,559 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
On Fuzzy Logic View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 11 May 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 2
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3
SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperEdge-Gap). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a Edge-Gap 10
pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 11
E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap 12
if the following expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 13
Ea makes connectivity components;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 14
e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 15
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 16
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 17
v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 18
Va makes connectivity components;
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 19
v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 20
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 21
SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic 22
re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic 23
rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEdge-Gap). Assume a Neutrosophic 24
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 25
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 26
SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic 27
rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 29
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 30
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive 31
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 32
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap if 33
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 34
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and 35
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 36
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 37
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 38
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 39
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap; an Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap 40
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic 41
rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 43
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 44
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the 45
Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 46
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 47
form the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 48
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 49
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 50
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 52
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 53
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 54
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 55
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 56
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap; and the Neutrosophic power is 57
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s 58
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 59
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 61
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 62
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 63
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 64
a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 65
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and 66
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 67
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 68
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 69
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 70
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap; an 71
Extreme V-SuperHyperEdge-Gap SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 72
e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic 73
v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and C(N SHG) for an 74
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 75
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 76
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet 77
S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 78
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap; and the 79
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 80
SuperHyperEdge-Gap SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 81
v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and C(N SHG) for a 83
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 84
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 85
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 86
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 87
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 88
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap; and the 89
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific 90
research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 91
SuperHyperEdge-Gap and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap. Two different types of 92
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 93
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 94
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 95
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 96
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 97
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 98
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 99
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 100
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 101
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 102
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 103
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 104
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 105
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 106
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 107
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 108
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 109
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 110
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 111
δ−SuperHyperEdge-Gap is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 112
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 113
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 114
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 115
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 116
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEdge-Gap is a maximal 117
Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such 118
that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 119
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 120
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 121
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 122
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 123
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 124
version of a SuperHyperEdge-Gap . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 125
SuperHyperEdge-Gap more understandable. For the sake of having Neutrosophic 126
SuperHyperEdge-Gap, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperEdge-Gap ”. 127
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 128
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 129
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperEdge-Gap . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 130
SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 131
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 132
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number 133
of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of 134
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 135
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 136
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 137
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 138
based on a SuperHyperEdge-Gap . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 139
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 140
have all SuperHyperEdge-Gap until the SuperHyperEdge-Gap, then it’s officially called a 141
“SuperHyperEdge-Gap” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperEdge-Gap . There are some 142
instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperEdge-Gap ”. 143
These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in 144
the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperEdge-Gap . For the 145
sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap, there’s a need to “redefine” the 146
notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap 147
”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 148
the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels 149
to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 150
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperEdge-Gap 151
are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap” if the intended Table holds. It’s 152
useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways 153
to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap more 154
understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 155
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 156
SuperHyperEdge-Gap, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, 157
and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 158
SuperHyperEdge-Gap”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 159
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 160
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 161
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap” where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic 162
value from all the SuperHyperEdge-Gap amid the maximum value amid all 163
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperEdge-Gap .] SuperHyperEdge-Gap . A graph is a 164
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 165
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 166
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 167
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 168
SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 169
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 170
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 171
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 172
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 173
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 174
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 175
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 176
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 177
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 178
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 179
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 180
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 181
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 182
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 183
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 184
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 185
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 186
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 187
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 188
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 189
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 190
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 191
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 192
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 193
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 194
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 195
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 196
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 197
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 198
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperEdge-Gap or the strongest 199
SuperHyperEdge-Gap in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 200
SuperHyperEdge-Gap, called SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and the strongest SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 201
called Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap, some general results are introduced. Beyond 202
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 203
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 204
any style of a SuperHyperEdge-Gap. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperEdge-Gap 205
but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperEdge-Gap. It, literarily, deforms and 206
it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap theory, 207
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 208
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Cancer’s Recognition 209
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 210
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 211
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 212
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 213
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 214
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 215
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 216
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 217
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 218
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 219
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 220
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 221
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 222
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 223
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 224
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 225
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 226
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 227
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 228
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 229
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 230
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 231
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 232
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 233
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 234
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 235
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 236
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 237
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 238
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 239
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 240
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 241
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 242
formally called “ SuperHyperEdge-Gap” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 243
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 244
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 245
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 246
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 247
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 248
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 249
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 250
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 251
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 252
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 253
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 254
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperEdge-Gap, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 255
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the optimal 256
SuperHyperEdge-Gap or the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap in those Extreme 257
SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 258
SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two 259
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 260
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperEdge-Gap. There isn’t any formation 261
of any SuperHyperEdge-Gap but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 262
It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 263
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 264
find the “ amount of SuperHyperEdge-Gap” of either individual of cells or the groups of 265
cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 266
SuperHyperEdge-Gap” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 267
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 268
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 269
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 270
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 271
SuperHyperEdge-Gap” and “Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap” on “SuperHyperGraph” and 272
“Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define 273
SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with 274
other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 275
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 276
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 277
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 278
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 279
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 280
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 281
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 282
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 283
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 284
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperEdge-Gap and Extreme 285
SuperHyperEdge-Gap, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperEdge-Gap” and “Extreme 286
SuperHyperEdge-Gap”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Edge-Gap to make 287
sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme 288
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 289
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 290
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to 291
origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend 292
the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, 293
in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 294
SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and 295
as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section 296
“General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are 297
well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, 298
“General Results”, “ SuperHyperEdge-Gap”, “Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap”, “Results on 299
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 300
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 301
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 302
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperEdge-Gap”. The 303
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 304
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 305
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 306
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 307
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 308
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 309
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 310
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 311
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 312
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 313
Research On the Redeemed Ways 314
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 315
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [195],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 316
Set](Ref. [195],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 317
(NSHG)](Ref. [195],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 318
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [195],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [195], 319
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 320
(NSHG)](Ref. [195],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 321
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [195],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 322
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [195],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 323
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [195]. 324
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 325
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 326
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [195],Definition 2.1,p.1). 327
Let X be a Edge-Gap 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 328
+
]− 0, 1 [. 329
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [195],Definition 2.2,p.2). 330
Let X be a Edge-Gap 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. [195],Definition 331
2.5,p.2). 332
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 333
pair S = (V, E), where 334
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 335
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 336
1, 2, . . . , n); 337
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 338
V; 339
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 340
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 341
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 342
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 343
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 344
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 345
(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 . 346
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 347
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 348
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 349
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 350
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 351
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 352
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 353
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 354
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 355
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 356
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 357
(Ref. [195],Definition 2.7,p.3). 358
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 359
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 360
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 361
characterized as follow-up items. 362
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 363
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 364
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 365
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 366
HyperEdge; 367
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 368
SuperEdge; 369
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 370
SuperHyperEdge. 371
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 372
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 373
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [195], Definition 2.7, p.3). 374
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 375
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 376
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 377
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 378
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 379
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 380
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)). 381
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 382
pair S = (V, E), where 383
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 384
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 385
1, 2, . . . , n); 386
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 387
V; 388
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 389
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 390
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 391
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 392
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 393
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 394
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 395
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 396
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 397
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 398
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 399
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 400
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 401
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 402
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 403
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 404
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 405
(Ref. [195],Definition 2.7,p.3). 406
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 407
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 408
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 409
characterized as follow-up items. 410
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 411
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 412
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 413
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 414
HyperEdge; 415
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 416
SuperEdge; 417
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 418
SuperHyperEdge. 419
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 420
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 421
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 422
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 423
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 424
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 425
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 426
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 427
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 428
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 429
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 430
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 431
given SuperHyperEdges; 432
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 433
SuperHyperEdges; 434
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 435
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 436
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 437
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 438
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 439
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 440
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 441
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 442
common SuperVertex. 443
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 444
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 445
of following conditions hold: 446
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 447
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 448
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 449
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 450
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 451
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 452
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 453
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 454
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 455
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 456
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 457
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. 458
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 459
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 460
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 461
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 462
SuperHyperPath . 463
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 464
(Ref. [195],Definition 5.3,p.7). 465
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 466
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 467
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 468
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 469
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 470
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 471
(NSHE)). (Ref. [195],Definition 5.4,p.7). 472
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 473
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 474
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 475
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 476
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 477
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 478
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 479
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 481
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 482
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 484
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 485
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 486
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 487
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap). 488
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 490
either V 0 or E 0 is called 491
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the following expression is called 492
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 493
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the following expression is called 494
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 495
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 496
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the following expression is called 497
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 498
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the following expression is called 499
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 500
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 501
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s either of Neutrosophic 502
v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 504
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEdge-Gap). 505
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 507
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s either of Neutrosophic 508
v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and C(N SHG) for 510
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 511
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 512
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 513
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 514
Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 515
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s either of Neutrosophic 516
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 519
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 520
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 523
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 524
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 525
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 527
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 528
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 529
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 530
Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 532
Extreme coefficient; 533
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 534
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 535
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 537
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 538
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 539
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 540
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 541
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 542
SuperHyperEdge-Gap; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 543
Neutrosophic coefficient; 544
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s either of Neutrosophic 545
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 548
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 550
Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 552
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s either of Neutrosophic 553
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 556
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 557
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 560
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEdge-Gap SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 561
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 562
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 566
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 567
Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 569
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 571
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 572
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 574
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 575
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 576
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 577
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 578
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 579
SuperHyperEdge-Gap; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 580
Neutrosophic coefficient. 581
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperEdge-Gap). 582
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 583
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
(i) an δ−SuperHyperEdge-Gap is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 584
SuperHyperEdge-Gap such that either of the following expressions hold for the 585
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 586
|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 587
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 588
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEdge-Gap is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 589
SuperHyperEdge-Gap such that either of the following Neutrosophic expressions hold 590
for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 591
|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. 592
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 593
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 594
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap, there’s a need to 595
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 596
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 597
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 598
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 599
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 600
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 601
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 602
understandable. 603
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 604
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 605
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperEdge-Gap, SuperHyperStar, 606
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 607
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 608
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 609
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic 610
SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 611
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 612
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap 613
more Neutrosophicly understandable. 614

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap, there’s a need to 615
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap”. The 616
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 617
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 618
assign to the values. 619
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperEdge-Gap. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 620
SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the Table (3) holds. 621
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The Edge-Gap 622
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 623
Forms 624
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 625
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 626
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is called Extreme 627
k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called Extreme event. The 628
following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 629
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 630
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called Extreme 632
s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme s-independent 633
criteria 634
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 635
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 636
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 637
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Any k-function Edge-Gap like E is called Extreme 639
k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Edge-Gap like E is called Extreme Variable. 640
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 641
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 642
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is called 644
Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme Expectation 645
criteria 646
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 647
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. an Extreme number is called Extreme Crossing if 649
the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 650
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.

Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 651
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let m and n propose special Edge-Gap. Then 652
with m ≥ 4n, 653
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 654
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 655
independently with probability Edge-Gap p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 656
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

SuperHyperVertices, Y the Extreme number of SuperHyperEdges, and Z the Extreme
number of crossings of H. The trivial bound noted above, when applied to H, yields the
inequality Z ≥ cr(H) ≥ Y − 3X. By linearity of Extreme Expectation,
E(Z) ≥ E(Y ) − 3E(X).
2
Now E(X) = pn, E(Y ) = p 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: 657
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
658
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 659
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points in the 660
plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the plane passing through 661
at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 662
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 663
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points on the 664
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 665
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 666
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 667
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 668
2 3
l < 32n /k . 669
Theorem 4.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 670
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points in the 671
plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then 672
k < 5n4/3 . 673
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 674
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Draw a SuperHyperUnit SuperHyperCircle around 675
each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of these SuperHyperCircles 676
i = 0n−1 ni = n and
P
passingPthrough exactly i points of P. Then 677
k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with 678
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 679
between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at 680
least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 681
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 682
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 683
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 684
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 685
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 686
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 687
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 688
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 689
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let X be a nonnegative 690
Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 691
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. 692
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 693
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let Xn be a nonnegative 694
integer-valued variable in a probability Edge-Gap (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as 695
n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 696
Proof. 697
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 698
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. A special SuperHyperGraph in 699
Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 700
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. Let 702
G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, where 703
k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this 704
being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S 705
is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 706
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 707
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 708
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 709
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 710
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: 711
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 712
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 713
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 714
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 715
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 716
number at most k. 717
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 718
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is called 720
Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme Variance criteria 721
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let X be an Extreme Variable 723
and let t be a positive real number. Then 724
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let t be a 726
positive real number. Then 727
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
728
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let Xn be an Extreme Variable 730
in a probability Edge-Gap (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 731
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s 733
Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because 734
|Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 735
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, 737
set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 738
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 739
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. As in the proof of related Theorem, the result is 741
straightforward. 742
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f and 744
k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 745
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 746
or 747
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 748
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. The latter is straightforward. 750
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 751
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let P be a monotone property of 753
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 754
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 755
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 756
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 757
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 758
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let F be a fixed Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 760
there is a threshold function for the property of containing a copy of F as an Extreme 761
SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 762
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. Let F be a nonempty balanced 764
Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l SuperHyperEdges. Then 765
n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F as an Extreme 766
SubSuperHyperGraph. 767
S = (V, E) is a probability Edge-Gap. The latter is straightforward. 769
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 770
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 771
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 772
SuperHyperEdge-Gap, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 773
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 774
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 775
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap in the Extreme Example (16.3)
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 776
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 777
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 778
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 779
C(N SHG)Extreme Edge-Gap

= {E4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme Edge-Gap SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Edge-Gap
= {}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Edge-Gap SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
780
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme 783
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 784
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 785
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 786
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 787

every given Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 788

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
789

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
792



= {E1 }.
= z3.
= {V3 }.
= z2.
795


= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {V5 }.
= z7.
798

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
801


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
804
• On the Figure (??), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 805

= {E4 }.
= z3.
= {}.
= 0z 0 .OntheF igure(9), theExtremeSuperHyperN otion, namely, ExtremeSuperH


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
807

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
810




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
813

= {Ei62 }.
X |E 6 |
= z i2 .
= {Vi31 , Vi87 }.
X |V 3 ,V 8 |
= z i1 i7 .
816


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
819

= {E1 , E2 }.
= 2z 2 .
= {V1 }.
= z5.
822




= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {Vi ∈ VN SHG }.
X
= z |{Vi ∈VN SHG }| .
825

= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {V1 , V2 }.
= 2z 5 .
828


= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {V2 , V23 }.
= 2z 5 .
831

= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {V2 }.
= z5.
834




= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
837

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {V1 }.
= z6.
840


= {E2 }.
= z 10 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
843

= {Ei ∈ (EN SHG \ {E1 })}.
X
= z |Ei ∈(EN SHG \{E1 })| .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
846


Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 847
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap if for 848
any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 849
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 850
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 851
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 852
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 853
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 854
any given Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 855
them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 856
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 857
an Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but 858
not all of them. 859
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Edge-Gap is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Edge-Gap is at least the 860
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 861
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 862
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 863
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Edge-Gap in some 864
cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 865
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 866
are contained in an Extreme R-Edge-Gap. 867
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Edge-Gap has, the least Extreme cardinality, the lower
sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Edge-Gap with the least Extreme cardinality, the lower 868
sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 869
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 870
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 871
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Edge−Gap
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Edge−GapSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Edge−Gap = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Edge−GapSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Edge-Gap. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp 872
bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Edge-Gap is the cardinality of 873
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Edge−GapSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Edge−Gap = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Edge−GapSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Edge-Gap since
neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where
amount refers to the Extreme number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more
than one to form any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges.
Let us consider the Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Edge-Gap. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the
cardinality, of a quasi-R-Edge-Gap is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Edge-Gap. 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 874
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 875
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 876
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 877
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 878
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 879
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 880
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 881
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Edge-Gap decorates the Extreme

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

no on-quasi-triangle Extreme style amid some amount of its Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. This Extreme setting of the Extreme SuperHyperModel proposes
an Extreme SuperHyperSet has only some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices from
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Extreme amount of Extreme
SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. The Extreme cardinality of this Extreme SuperHyperSet is the
maximum and the Extreme case is occurred in the minimum Extreme situation. To sum
them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Extreme cardinality such that
Contains some Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Edge-Gap for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used Extreme 882
background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common theme of the 883
lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 884
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 885
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

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

SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Extreme cardinality ,

z
and
E
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Extreme R-Edge-Gap. Let Zi ∼ Zj , be
defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the Extreme
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 886
Extreme R-Edge-Gap =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
887
Extreme R-Edge-Gap =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap where E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed

that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended SuperHyperVertices but
in an Extreme Edge-Gap, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique.
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an
Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Edge-Gap is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Edge-Gap is at least 888
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 889
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 890
other words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 891
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 892
Edge-Gap in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with 893
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 894
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Edge-Gap. 895
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 896
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 897
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 898
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 899
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 900
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 901
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 902
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 903
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 904
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 905
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap where the 906
Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an 907
Extreme embedded R-Edge-Gap. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet 908
and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 909
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 910
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 911
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less 912
than two distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum 913
Extreme style of the embedded Extreme R-Edge-Gap. The interior types of the Extreme 914
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors 915
are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common 916
connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the 917
Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the 918
Extreme R-Edge-Gap. Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in 919
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior 920
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded 921
Extreme Edge-Gap, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve 922
more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant 923
than the title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. 924
Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 925
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 926
implying the Extreme R-Edge-Gap. The Extreme R-Edge-Gap with the exclusion of the 927
exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with 928
other terms, the Extreme R-Edge-Gap with the inclusion of all Extreme 929
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap. 930
To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 931
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 932
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 933
any given Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 934
them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 935
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices 936
in an Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them 937
but not all of them. 938
The main definition of the Extreme R-Edge-Gap has two titles. an Extreme 939
quasi-R-Edge-Gap and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 940
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 941
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap with that quasi-maximum Extreme 942
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If 943
there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the Extreme 944
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 945
quasi-R-Edge-Gaps for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme corresponded maximum 946
number. The essence of the Extreme Edge-Gap ends up but this essence starts up in the 947
terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap, again and more in the operations of collecting all 948
the Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gaps acted on the all possible used formations of the Extreme 949
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number is 950
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Edge-Gaps. Let 951
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Edge-Gap be an Extreme number, an 952
Extreme SuperHyperSet and an Extreme Edge-Gap . Then 953
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Edge-Gap ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Edge-Gap is re-formalized and 954
redefined as follows. 955
GExtreme Edge-Gap ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 956
technical definition for the Extreme Edge-Gap. 957
GExtreme Edge-Gap =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 958
Edge-Gap poses the upcoming expressions. 959
GExtreme Edge-Gap =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 960
GExtreme Edge-Gap =
= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 961
GExtreme Edge-Gap =

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 962
GExtreme Edge-Gap ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


963
GExtreme Edge-Gap =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

964
GExtreme Edge-Gap =

965
GExtreme Edge-Gap =

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 966
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 967
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 968
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 969
Quasi-Edge-Gap” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme Quasi-Edge-Gap” since 970
“Extreme Quasi-Edge-Gap” happens “Extreme Edge-Gap” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 971
as initial framework and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not 972
happens “Extreme Edge-Gap” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 973
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 974
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 975
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Edge-Gap”, and “Extreme Edge-Gap” are up. 976
Thus, let 977
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 978
GExtreme Edge-Gap be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 979
an Extreme Edge-Gap and the new terms are up. 980
GExtreme Edge-Gap ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
981
GExtreme Edge-Gap =
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
982
GExtreme Edge-Gap =
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
983
GExtreme Edge-Gap =
And with go back to initial structure, 984
GExtreme Edge-Gap ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


985
GExtreme Edge-Gap =
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

986
GExtreme Edge-Gap =

987
GExtreme Edge-Gap =

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 988
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap if for any of them, 989
and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme 990
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme 991
exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 992
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 993
are coming up. 994
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Edge-Gap.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Edge-Gap. The Extreme

SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Edge-Gap C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 995
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 996
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 997
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 998
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 999
Extreme Edge-Gap is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

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

Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Edge-Gap C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 1000
is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 1001
an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given 1002
by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Edge-Gap and it’s an Extreme 1003
Edge-Gap. Since it’s 1004
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for
some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Edge-Gap. There isn’t only less than two Extreme
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Edge-Gap,

is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Edge-Gap ,

not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:

does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1005
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1006
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1007
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1008
“Extreme R-Edge-Gap” 1009
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1010
Extreme R-Edge-Gap, 1011
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Edge-Gap amid those obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Edge-Gap, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1012
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Edge-Gap. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for
the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Edge-Gap is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1013
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Edge-Gap if for 1014
any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1015
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1016
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1017
them. 1018
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1019
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1020
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1021
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1022
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1023
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Edge-Gap with the least cardinality, 1024
the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a connected Extreme 1025
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1026
SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the Extreme 1027
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some 1028
Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Edge-Gap. Since it 1029
doesn’t have 1030
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1032
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1033
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1034
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme R-Edge-Gap. 1035
Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that there’s an Extreme 1036
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least 1037
one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected 1038
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1039
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme 1040
SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one 1041
Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1042
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 1043
Extreme R-Edge-Gap, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 1044
the Extreme R-Edge-Gap, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only 1045
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1046
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1047
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1048
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1049
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1050
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1051
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Edge-Gap only 1052
contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1053
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1054
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1055
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1056
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1057
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1058
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Edge-Gap, is up. There’s neither empty 1059
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1060
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1061
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Edge-Gap. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme 1062
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1063
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Edge−GapSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Edge−Gap = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Edge−GapSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Edge-Gap. The Extreme 1064
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1065
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Edge-Gap C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 1066
is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1067
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 1068
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1069
of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for 1070
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1071
inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme Edge-Gap is 1072
up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Edge-Gap is an 1073
Extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the 1074
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1075
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1076
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1077
Extreme Edge-Gap is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1078
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1079
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Edge-Gap. Since 1080
the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1081
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Edge-Gap C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 1082
the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an 1083
Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that Extreme 1084
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Edge-Gap and it’s an Extreme Edge-Gap. Since it’s 1085
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1087
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1088
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1089
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1090
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Edge-Gap , 1091
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme , not:

Edge-Gap 1092
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1093
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1094
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1095
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1096
“Extreme Edge-Gap ” 1097
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1098
Extreme Edge-Gap , 1099
is only and only 1100
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1101
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1102
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1103
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1104
SuperHyperClasses. 1105
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1106

= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {VEi ∩Ej =1 }.
X |V
= z Ei ∩Ej =1 | .
Proof. Let 1107
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1108
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEdge-Gap in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1109
There’s a new way to redefine as 1110
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 1111
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEdge-Gap. The latter is 1112
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1114
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1115
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1116
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1117
Then 1118

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1119
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1120
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1121

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1126
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1127
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1128
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1129

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1130
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1131
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEdge-Gap in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1132
a new way to redefine as 1133

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1137
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1138
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1139
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1140
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1141
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1142
Then 1143

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEdge-Gap in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1144
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
1145
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1146

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperEdge-Gap. Thus the notion of 1150
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEdge-Gap could be 1151
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap in the Example (16.11)
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 1152
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1153
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEdge-Gap taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1154
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1155
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1156
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1157
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1158
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1159
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1160
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1161
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1162
Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1163
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1164
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1165

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1166
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1167
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest SuperHyperEdge-Gap taken from a connected Extreme 1168
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1169

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperEdge-Gap. Thus the notion of 1172
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEdge-Gap could be 1173
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 1174
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1176
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1177
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEdge-Gap in the Example (16.13)
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1180
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1181
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1182
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1183
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 1184
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1185
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1186
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1187

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1188
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1189
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap in the Extreme Example (16.15)
is a longest SuperHyperEdge-Gap taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1190
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1191

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperEdge-Gap. Thus the notion of quasi 1194
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEdge-Gap could be applied. The 1195
unique embedded SuperHyperEdge-Gap proposes some longest SuperHyperEdge-Gap excerpt 1196
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1197
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1198
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1199
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1200
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1201
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1202
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1203
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1204
For the SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and the Extreme 1205
SuperHyperEdge-Gap, some general results are introduced. 1206
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap is “redefined” on the 1207
positions of the alphabets. 1208
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. Then 1209
Extreme SuperHyperEdge − Gap =

{theSuperHyperEdge − Gapof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEdge − Gap
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEdge−Gap. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1210
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1211
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1212
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1213
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap and SuperHyperEdge-Gap 1214
coincide. 1215
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1217
SuperHyperEdge-Gap if and only if it’s a SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1218
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1220
SuperHyperEdge-Gap if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1221
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1222
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap is its 1223
SuperHyperEdge-Gap and reversely. 1224
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 1225
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1226
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap is its 1227
SuperHyperEdge-Gap and reversely. 1228
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1229
SuperHyperEdge-Gap isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEdge-Gap isn’t well-defined. 1230
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1231
Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEdge-Gap isn’t 1232
well-defined. 1233
Then its Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEdge-Gap 1236
isn’t well-defined. 1237
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1238
SuperHyperEdge-Gap is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEdge-Gap is well-defined. 1239
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1240
its Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEdge-Gap is 1241
well-defined. 1242
Then its Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEdge-Gap is 1245
well-defined. 1246
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1247
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1248
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1249
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1250
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1251
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1252
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1253
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1254
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1255
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1256
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1257
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1258
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1259
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1260
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1261
independent SuperHyperSet is 1262
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1263
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1264
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1265
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1266
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1267
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1268
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1269
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEdge-Gap/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 1270
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1271
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1272
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1273
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1274
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1275
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1276
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1277
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1278
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1279
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1280
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1281
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1282
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1283
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1284
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1285
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1286
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEdge-Gap/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 1288
(i) : the SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1289
(ii) : the SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1290
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1291
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1292
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1293
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1294
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1295
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1296
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1298
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1299
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1300
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1301
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1302
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1303
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1304
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1305
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1308
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1309
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1310
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1311
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1315
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1316
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1317
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1320
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1321
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1322
is a 1323
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1327
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1328
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1329
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1332
number of 1333
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1337
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1338
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1339
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1340
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1341
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1342
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1344
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1345
(iv) : SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1349
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1350
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1351
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1352
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1353
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1354
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1355
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1356
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1360
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1362
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1363
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1364
setting of dual 1365
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1369
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1370
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1371
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1373
SuperHyperEdge-Gap/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1375
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1376
dual 1377
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1381
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1382
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1383
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1385
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1386
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1387
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1393
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1394
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1395
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1396
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1397
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1398
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1399
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1400
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1401
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1402
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap, then 1403
(i) S is SuperHyperEdge-Gap set; 1404
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1405
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1406
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1407
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1408
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1409
connected. Then 1410
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1411
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1412
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1413
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1414
SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1415
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1416
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1417
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1418
a dual SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1419
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1420
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1421
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1422
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1423
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1424
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1425
dual SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1426
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEdge-Gap. Then 1427
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1428
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1430
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1431
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1432
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1433
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEdge-Gap. Then 1435
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1436
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1438
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1439
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1440
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1442
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1443
(ii) Γ = 1; 1444
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1445
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1446
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1447
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1448
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1449
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1450
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1451
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1452
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1453
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1454
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1455
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1457
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1458
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1459
SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1460
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1461
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1462
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1463
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 1464
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1465
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1467
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1468
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1469
SuperHyperEdge-Gap for N SHF; 1470
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1471
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1472
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1473
SuperHyperEdge-Gap for N SHF : (V, E). 1474
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1475
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1476
SuperHyperSet. Then 1477
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1478
SuperHyperEdge-Gap for N SHF; 1479
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1480

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1481
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperEdge-Gap for 1482
N SHF : (V, E). 1483
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1484
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1485
SuperHyperSet. Then 1486
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap 1487
for N SHF : (V, E); 1488
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1489

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1490
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperEdge-Gap for 1491
N SHF : (V, E). 1492
following statements hold; 1494
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1495
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 1496
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1498
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive 1499
following statements hold; 1502
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1503
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 1504
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1506
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful 1507
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1509
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1510
hold; 1511
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1512
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1513
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c

+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1514
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1516
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1518
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1519
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1520
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1521
hold; 1522
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1523
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1525
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1527
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1529
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1530
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1532
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1533
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1534
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1536
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1538
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1541
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1543
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1544
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1545
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1547
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1549
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap; 1550
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1552
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1554
Then following statements hold; 1555
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1556
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1558
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1560
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1563
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1565
Then following statements hold; 1566
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1567
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1569
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1571
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1574
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1575
Recognition 1576
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1577
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1578
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1579
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1580
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1581
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1582
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1583
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1584
long-term Extreme function. 1585
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1586
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1587
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1588
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1589
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1590
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1591
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1592
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1593
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1594
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1595
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1596
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEdge-Gap, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1597
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 1598
Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap or the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap in those Extreme 1599
Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1600
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1601
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1602
SuperHyperModel 1603
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1604
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1605
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1606
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1607
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1608
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1609
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1610
the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1611
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1612
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1613
SuperHyperModel 1614
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1615
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1616
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperEdge-Gap
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

SuperHyperEdge-Gap
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1617
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1618
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1619
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1621
is the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1622
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1623
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1624
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1625
The SuperHyperEdge-Gap and the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap are defined on a 1626
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1627
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1628
recognitions? 1629
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperEdge-Gap and 1630
the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap? 1631
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1632
compute them? 1633
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1634
SuperHyperEdge-Gap and the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap? 1635
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEdge-Gap and the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap do a 1636
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 1637
are there else? 1638
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1639
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1640
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1641
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1642
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1643
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1644
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1645
highlighted. 1646
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1647
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1648
SuperHyperEdge-Gap. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 1649
Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the 1650
new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, Extreme 1651
SuperHyperEdge-Gap, finds the convenient background to implement some results based 1652
on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases 1653
of this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer 1654
to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1655
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperEdge-Gap, the new 1656
SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are 1657
gathered in the section on the SuperHyperEdge-Gap and the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap. 1658
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 1659
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1660
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1661
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1662
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1663
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1664
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1665
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1666
formally called “ SuperHyperEdge-Gap” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 1667
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1668
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperEdge-Gap
3. Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1669
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1670
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1671
Forms 1673
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1674
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1675
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1676
V 0 or E 0 is called 1677
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1678
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1679
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1680
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1681
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1682
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1683
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1684
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1685
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1686
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1687
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1688
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1689
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1691
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1692
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1693
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1694
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1695
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1696
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1697
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1699
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1700
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1701
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1702
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1703
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1704
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1705
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1706
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1707
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1708
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1710
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1715
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1717
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1727
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1732
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1734
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1735
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1739
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1740
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1741
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1742
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1743
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1752
Extreme coefficient. 1761
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1765
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1771
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1779


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1822
Then 1823
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1824
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1828
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1832
Then 1834
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1835
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1843
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1844
Then 1845
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1846
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1856
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1857
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1858
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1859
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 1864
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1865
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1866
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1867
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1868
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1877

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1880
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1881

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1887
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1898
Proposition 12.14. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1899
Then, 1900
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1901
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1902

∃!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 1908
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1909
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 1911
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1912
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1914
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 1915
Forms 1917
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 1918
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E , ∃Ej ∈ E , such that 1922
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 1923
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1924
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1925
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1926
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1927
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 1928
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1929
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 1930
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1931
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 1932
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 1933
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 1934
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 1937
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 1938
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1939
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1940
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 1941
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1942
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 1943
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 1944
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1946
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 1950
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1951
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 1952
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 1953
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 1959
coefficient; 1960
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1961
coefficient; 1970
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 1971
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1975
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1976
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 1977
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 1978
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1982
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 1984
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1985
coefficient; 1994
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1995
coefficient. 2004
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2008
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2009
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2014
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2016
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2022


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2066
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

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

.
Proof. Let 2067
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2071
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2075
Then 2077

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

.
Proof. Let 2078
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2086
Then 2088
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2089

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2099
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2102
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 2107
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2108
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2109
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2111
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2120

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2123
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2124
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2125

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2128
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2129
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2130
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2141
Then, 2143

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

.
Proof. Let 2144
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2145

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2149
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2150
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2151
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2152
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2157
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2158
Forms 2160
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2161
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2165
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2166
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2167
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2168
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2169
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2170
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2171
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2172
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2173
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2174
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2175
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2176
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2179
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2181
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2185
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2186
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2188
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2192
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2193
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2194
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2195
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2201
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2203
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2213
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2214
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2218
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2220
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2221
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2222
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2225
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2226
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2227
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2228
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2229
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2238
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2251
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2257
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2265


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2309
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2310
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2314
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2318
Then 2320
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2321
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2329
Then 2331
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2332

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2342
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2345
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 2350
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2351
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2354
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2363

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2366
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2367

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2371
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2372
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2384
Then, 2386
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2387
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2388

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2392
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2393
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2394
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2400
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2401
Forms 2403
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2404
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2408
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2409
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2410
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2411
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2412
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2413
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2414
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2415
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2416
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2417
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2418
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2419
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2422
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2424
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2428
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2429
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2431
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2435
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2436
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2437
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2438
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2444
coefficient; 2445
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2446
coefficient; 2455
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2456
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2460
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2461
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2462
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2463
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2467
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2469
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2470
coefficient; 2479
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2480
coefficient. 2489
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2493
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2499
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2507


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2551
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2552
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2556
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2560
Then 2562
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2563
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2571
Then 2573
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2574
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2584
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2587
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2592
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2593
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2596
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2605

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2608
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2609
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2610

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2613
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2614
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2626
Then, 2628
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2629
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2630

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2634
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2635
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2636
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2642
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2643
Forms 2645
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2646
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2650
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2651
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2652
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2653
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2654
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2655
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2656
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2657
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2658
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2659
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2660
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2661
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2662
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2663
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2666
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2668
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2669
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2671
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2673
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2674
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2677
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2678
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2679
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2680
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2681
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2682
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2684
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2689
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2691
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2692
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2701
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2706
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2708
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2709
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2713
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2714
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2715
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2716
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2717
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2718
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2726
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2727
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2739
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2740
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2741
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2742
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2743
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2744
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2745
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2746
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2749
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2750
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2751
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2752
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2754


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {Vi+2i=011 }.

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2818
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2819
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2823
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2827
Then 2829
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2830
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2833
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2838
Then 2840
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2841
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2851
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2854
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2859
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2860
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2863
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2864
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2872
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2875
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2876

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2880
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2881
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2893
Then, 2895
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2896
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2897

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2901
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2902
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2903
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2904
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2910
17 Background 2911
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2912
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 2913
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 2914
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 2915
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett 2916
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2917
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 2918
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 2919
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 2920
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 2921
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 2922
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 2923
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 2924
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2925
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 2926
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 2927
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 2928
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2929
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 2930
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 2931
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 2932
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 2933
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 2934
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2935
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2936
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 2937
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 2938
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 2939
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 2940
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 2941
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 2942
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 2943
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 2944
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 2945
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 2946
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 2947
SuperHyperNumbers. 2948
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 2949
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 2950
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research 2951
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 2952
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 2953
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 2954
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 2955
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 2956
16-24. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 2957
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2958
results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing 2959
Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside 2960
(Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 2961
(2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by 2962
Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 2963
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 2964
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 2965
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 2966
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 2967
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 2968
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 2969
in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 2970
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 2971
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 2972
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2973
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 2974
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 2975
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 2976
in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 2977
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 2978
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 2979
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 2980
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 2981
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 2982
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 2983
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 2984
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry 2985
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 2986
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 2987
Beyond ” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 2988
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 2989
in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 2990
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 2991
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 2992
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 2993
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett 2994
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 2995
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 2996
in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 2997
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 2998
Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 2999
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3000
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3001
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3002
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3003
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3004
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3005
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3006
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3007
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3008
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3009
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3010
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [165] by Henry 3011
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3012
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3013
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [166] by Henry Garrett 3014
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3015
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3016
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [167] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3017
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3018
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3019
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [168] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3020
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3021
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [171] by 3022
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3023
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3024
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [172] by Henry 3025
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3026
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3027
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [175] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3028
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3029
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [178] by Henry 3030
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3031
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3032
in Ref. [179] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3033
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3034
Ref. [180] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3035
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3036
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [181] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3037
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3038
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [182] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3039
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3040
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [183] by Henry Garrett 3041
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3042
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [194] by Henry 3043
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3044
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3045
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [195] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–195], there 3046
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3047
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3048
at [196–306]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3049
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [307, 308]. 3050
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3051
proposed as book in Ref. [307] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3052
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3053
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3054
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3055
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3056
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3057
proposed as book in Ref. [308] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3058
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3059
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3060
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3061
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3062
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3063
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3064
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3065
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3066
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3067
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–195] 3068
alongside scientific research books at [196–306]. Two popular scientific research books 3069
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic 3070
science is on [307, 308]. 3071
References 3072
1. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3073
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3074
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3075
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3076
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3077
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3078
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3079
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3080
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3081
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3082
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3083
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3084
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3085
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3086
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3087
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3088
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3089
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3090
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. 3091
(https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/neutrosophic-codegree- 3092
and-neutrosophic-degree-alongside-chromatic-numbers-in-the-setting-of-some- 3093
classes-related-to-neut.pdf) 3094
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3095
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3096
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3097
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3098
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3099
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3100
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3101
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3102
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3103
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3104
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3105
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3106
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3108
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3109
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3110
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3111
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3112
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3113
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3114
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3115
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3116
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3117
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3118
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3119
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3120
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3121
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3122
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3123
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3124
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3125
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3126
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3127
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3128
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3129
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3130
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3131
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3132
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3133
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3134
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3135
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3136
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3137
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3138
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3139
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3140
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3141
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3142
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3143
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3144
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3145
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3146
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3147
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3148
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3149
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3151
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3155
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3156
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3157
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3158
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3159
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3160
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3161
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3162
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3163
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3164
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3165
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3166
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3167
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3168
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3169
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3170
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3173
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3174
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3175
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3176
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3177
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3178
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3179
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904671). 3180
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3182
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3183
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3184
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3185
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3186
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3187
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3188
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3190
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3191
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3193
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3196
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3199
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3202
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3203
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3205
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3208
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7853867). 3209
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3210
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3211
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3214
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3217
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3220
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3221
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3223
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3226
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3227
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3229
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3232
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3235
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3238
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3241
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3244
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3245
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3247
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3248
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3250
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3251
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3253
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3256
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3259
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3260
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3262
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3265
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3266
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3267
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3269
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3270
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3272
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3273
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3274
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3275
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3278
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3281
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3282
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3284
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3285
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3287
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3290
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3293
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3296
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3299
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3302
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3305
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3308
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3311
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3313
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3314
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3315
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3317
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3320
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3321
73. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3322
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3323
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3324
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3326
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3329
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3332
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3333
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3335
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3336
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3338
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3339
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3340
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3341
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3342
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3344
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3347
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3350
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3351
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3353
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3356
85. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3358
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3360
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3362
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3364
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3365
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3368
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3370
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3371
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3374
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3376
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3378
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3380
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3382
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3383
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3386
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3387
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3389
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3392
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3394
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3396
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3398
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3399
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3401
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3403
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3405
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3407
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3408
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3409
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3410
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3411
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3413
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3414
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3415
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3416
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3419
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3421
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3422
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3425
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3427
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3428
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3431
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3433
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3435
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3437
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3438
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3439
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3440
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3443
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3444
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3445
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3446
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3449
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3450
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3451
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3452
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3455
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3456
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3457
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3458
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3461
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3462
120. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3463
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3464
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3467
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3468
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3469
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3470
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3472
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3473
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3476
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3477
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3478
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3479
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3482
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3483
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3484
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3485
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3488
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3490
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3491
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3494
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3496
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3497
132. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3499
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3500
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3503
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3506
135. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3508
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3509
136. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3511
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3512
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3514
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3515
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3516
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3517
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3518
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3519
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3520
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3521
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3523
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3524
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3525
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3526
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3527
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3528
142. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3529
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3530
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3531
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3532
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3535
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3536
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3539
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3540
145. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3541
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3543
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3544
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3547
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3548
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3551
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3552
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3553
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3554
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3555
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3556
149. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3557
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3558
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3559
150. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3560
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3561
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3562
151. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3563
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3564
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3565
152. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3566
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3567
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3568
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3569
153. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3570
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3571
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3572
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3573
154. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3574
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3575
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3576
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3577
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3578
155. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3579
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3580
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3581
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3582
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3583
156. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3584
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3585
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3586
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3587
157. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3588
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3589
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3590
158. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3591
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3594
159. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3595
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3596
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3597
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3598
160. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3599
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3600
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3601
161. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3602
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3603
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3604
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3605
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3606
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3607
162. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3608
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3609
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3610
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3611
163. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3612
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3613
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3614
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3615
164. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3616
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3617
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3618
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3619
165. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3620
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3621
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3622
166. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3623
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3624
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3625
167. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3627
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3628
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3629
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3630
168. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3631
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3632
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3633
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3634
169. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3635
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3636
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3637
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3638
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3640
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3641
171. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3642
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3643
172. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3645
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3646
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3647
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3652
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3656
175. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3657
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3658
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3659
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3660
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3663
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3665
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3666
178. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3667
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3668
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3671
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3672
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3674
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3675
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3678
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3679
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3681
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3682
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3685
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3686
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3688
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3689
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3691
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3696
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3697
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3701
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3702
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3705
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3708
190. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3709
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3710
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3711
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3712
191. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3713
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3714
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3715
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3716
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3719
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3720
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3723
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3724
194. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3725
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3726
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3727
195. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3728
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3729
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3730
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3731
196. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3732
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7905287). 3733
197. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3734
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 3735
198. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3736
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7874677). 3737
199. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3738
200. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3740
201. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3742
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 3743
202. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3744
203. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3746
204. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3748
205. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3750
206. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3752
207. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3754
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3755
208. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3756
209. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3758
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3759
210. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3760
211. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3762
212. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3764
213. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3766
214. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3768
215. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3770
216. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3772
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3773
217. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3774
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3775
218. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3776
219. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3778
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3779
220. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3780
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3781
221. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3782
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3783
222. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3784
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 3785
223. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3786
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3787
224. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3788
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3789
225. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3790
226. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3792
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3793
227. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3794
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3795
228. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3796
229. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3798
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3799
230. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3800
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3801
231. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3802
232. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3804
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3805
233. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3806
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3807
234. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3808
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3809
235. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3810
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3811
236. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3812
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 3813
237. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3814
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3815
238. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3816
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3817
239. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3818
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3819
240. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3820
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3821
241. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3822
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3823
242. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3824
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3825
243. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3826
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3827
244. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3828
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3829
245. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3830
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3831
246. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3832
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3833
247. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3834
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3835
248. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3836
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3837
249. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3838
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3839
250. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3840
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3841
251. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3842
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3843
252. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3844
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3845
253. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3846
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3847
254. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3848
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3849
255. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3850
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3851
256. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3852
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3853
257. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3854
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3855
258. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3856
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3857
259. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3858
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3859
260. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3860
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3861
261. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3862
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3863
262. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3864
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3865
263. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3866
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3867
264. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3868
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3869
265. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3870
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3871
266. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3872
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3873
267. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3874
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3875
268. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3876
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3877
269. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3878
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3879
270. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3880
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3881
271. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3882
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3883
272. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3884
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3885
273. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3886
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3887
274. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3888
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3889
275. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3890
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3891
276. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3892
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3893
277. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3894
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3895
278. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3896
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3897
279. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3898
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3899
280. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3900
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3901
281. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3902
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3903
282. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3904
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3905
283. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3906
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3907
284. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3908
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3909
285. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3910
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3911
286. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3912
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3913
287. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3914
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3915
288. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3916
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3917
289. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3918
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3919
290. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3920
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3921
291. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3922
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3923
292. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3924
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3925
293. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3926
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3927
294. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3928
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3929
295. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3930
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3931
296. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3932
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3933
297. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3934
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3935
298. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3936
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3937
299. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3938
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3939
300. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3940
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3941
301. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3942
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3943
302. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3944
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3945
303. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3946
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3947
304. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3948
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3949
305. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3950
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 3951
306. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3952
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 3953
307. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3954
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 3955
308. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3956
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 3957
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Gab by Hyper Gape of Edge-Gap in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super Gab by Hyper Gape of Edge-Gap in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In Cancer's Recognition

Preprint · May 2023

474 PUBLICATIONS 16,559 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

On Fuzzy Logic View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 2

Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperEdge-Gap). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a Edge-Gap 10

pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and 11

E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap 12

if the following expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 13

Ea makes connectivity components;

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 14

e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 15

Ea makes connectivity components;

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 16

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 17

v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 18

Va makes connectivity components;

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 19

v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap criteria holds 20

Va makes connectivity components;

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 21

SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic 22

re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic 23

rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEdge-Gap). Assume a Neutrosophic 24

SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 25

SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 26

SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic 27

re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic 28

rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 29

N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 30

of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive 31

Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 32

that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap if 33

it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 34

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and 35

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 36

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 37

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 38

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 39

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap; an Extreme SuperHyperEdge-Gap 40

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic 41

re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic 42

rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 43

N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 44

Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 46

consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 47

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge-Gap SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 49

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 50

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEdge-Gap and 51

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 52

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 53

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 54

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 55

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 56

corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperEdge-Gap if it’s 58

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEdge-Gap, 59