New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/370779902
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy
Preprint · May 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7940830
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
473 PUBLICATIONS 16,841 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 16 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 In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On 3
Super Eddy 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
SuperHyperDominating-Edges). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 10
Dominating-Edges pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11
V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges criteria holds 14
E ∈ EN SHG either of its endpoints or one SuperHyperVertex

from their SuperHyperNeighbors is inVa ∈ Ea ;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 15

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 17
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 18
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges criteria holds 19

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 20

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 23
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and 24
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDominating-Edges). 25
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 26
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 27
Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 28
e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic 29
v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and 30
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 31
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 32
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 33
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 34
SuperHyperDominating-Edges; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of 35
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 36
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges 37
and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 38
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 39
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 41
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges; an Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges 42
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 43
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 45
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 46
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 47
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 48
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 49
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the 50
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 51
SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 52
e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic 53
v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and 54
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 55
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 56
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 57
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 58
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 59
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the Neutrosophic power 60
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating-Edges 61
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic 62
re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and Neutrosophic 63
rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 64
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 65
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive 66
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 67
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges; a Neutrosophic 68
V-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 69
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 71
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 72
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 73
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 74
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges; an 75
Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 76
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 77
and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 79
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 80
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an 81
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 82
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 83
SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 84
coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 85
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 86
and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 88
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 89
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 90
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 91
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 92
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 93
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this 94
scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 95
SuperHyperDominating-Edges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Two different 96
types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and 97
the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 98
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 99
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 100
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 101
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 102
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 103
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 104
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 105
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 106
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 107
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 108
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 109
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 110
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 111
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 112
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 113
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 114
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 115
δ−SuperHyperDominating-Edges is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 116
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 117
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 118
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 119
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 120
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDominating-Edges is a 121
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 122
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 123
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 124
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 125
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 126
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 127
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 128
version of a SuperHyperDominating-Edges . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 129
make a SuperHyperDominating-Edges more understandable. For the sake of having 130
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 131
“SuperHyperDominating-Edges ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 132
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 133
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 134
SuperHyperDominating-Edges . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the 135
mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 136
HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 137
with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 138
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 139
“The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 140
HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 141
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 142
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 143
based on a SuperHyperDominating-Edges . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 144
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 145
have all SuperHyperDominating-Edges until the SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then it’s officially 146
called a “SuperHyperDominating-Edges” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperDominating-Edges . 147
There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a 148
“SuperHyperDominating-Edges ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment 149
since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 150
SuperHyperDominating-Edges . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 151
SuperHyperDominating-Edges, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic 152
SuperHyperDominating-Edges” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges ”. The 153
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 154
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 155
assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 156
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a 157
SuperHyperDominating-Edges are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges” if 158
the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of 159
SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a 160
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 161
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 162
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperDominating-Edges, SuperHyperStar, 163
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, 164
are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges”, 165
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 166
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 167
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges” where it’s 168
the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperDominating-Edges 169
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperDominating-Edges 170
.] SuperHyperDominating-Edges . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 171
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 172
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 173
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 174
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s only one 175
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 176
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 177
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 178
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 179
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 180
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 181
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 182
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 183
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 184
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 185
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 186
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 187
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 188
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 189
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 190
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 191
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 192
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 193
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 194
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 195
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 196
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 197
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 198
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 199
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 200
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 201
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 202
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 203
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperDominating-Edges, SuperHyperStar, 204
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 205
either the longest SuperHyperDominating-Edges or the strongest SuperHyperDominating-Edges 206
in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 207
called SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and the strongest SuperHyperDominating-Edges, called 208
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges, some general results are introduced. Beyond 209
that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges 210
but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form 211
any style of a SuperHyperDominating-Edges. There isn’t any formation of any 212
SuperHyperDominating-Edges but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 213
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity 214
with Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and 215
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 216
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Cancer’s 217
Neutrosophic Recognition 218
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 219
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 220
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 221
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 222
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 223
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 224
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 225
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 226
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 227
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 228
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 229
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 230
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 231
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 232
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 233
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 234
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 235
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 236
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 237
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 238
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 239
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 240
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 241
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 242
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 243
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 244
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 245
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 246
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 247
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 248
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 249
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 250
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 251
formally called “ SuperHyperDominating-Edges” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 252
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 253
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 254
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 255
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 256
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 257
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 258
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 259
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 260
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 261
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 262
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 263
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperDominating-Edges, SuperHyperStar, 264
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 265
either the optimal SuperHyperDominating-Edges or the Neutrosophic 266
SuperHyperDominating-Edges in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general 267
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic 268
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s 269
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 270
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperDominating-Edges but 271
literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperDominating-Edges. It, literarily, deforms 272
and it doesn’t form. 273
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 274
find the “ amount of SuperHyperDominating-Edges” of either individual of cells or the groups 275
of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 276
SuperHyperDominating-Edges” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 277
cells? 278
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 279
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 280
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 281
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 282
SuperHyperDominating-Edges” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges” on 283
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 284
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 285
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 286
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 287
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 288
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 289
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 290
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 291
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 292
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 293
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 294
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 295
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperDominating-Edges and 296
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges, are figured out in sections “ 297
SuperHyperDominating-Edges” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges”. In the sense of 298
tackling on getting results and in Dominating-Edges to make sense about continuing the 299
research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are 300
introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out 301
to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 302
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, 303
there are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in 304
new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the 305
sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 306
SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and 307
as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section 308
“General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are 309
well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, 310
“General Results”, “ SuperHyperDominating-Edges”, “Neutrosophic 311
SuperHyperDominating-Edges”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 312
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s done 313
about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and going 314
to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 315
presented in section, “ SuperHyperDominating-Edges”. The keyword of this research debut in 316
the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections 317
“Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and 318
“Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. 319
In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s 320
done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” 321
to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the 322
limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense 323
and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and 324
Closing Remarks”. 325
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 326
Research On the Redeemed Ways 327
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 328
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [197],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 329
Set](Ref. [197],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 330
(NSHG)](Ref. [197],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 331
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [197],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [197], 332
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 333
(NSHG)](Ref. [197],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 334
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [197],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 335
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [197],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 336
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [197]. 337
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 338
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 339
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [197],Definition 2.1,p.1). 340
Let X be a Dominating-Edges 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 341
+
]− 0, 1 [. 342
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [197],Definition 2.2,p.2). 343
Let X be a Dominating-Edges 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. [197],Definition 344
2.5,p.2). 345
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 346
pair S = (V, E), where 347
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 348
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 349
1, 2, . . . , n); 350
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 351
V; 352
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 353
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 354
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 355
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 356
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 357
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );
P
(viii) i0 358
(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 . 359
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 360
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 361
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 362
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 363
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 364
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 365
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 366
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 367
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 368
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 369
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 370
(Ref. [197],Definition 2.7,p.3). 371
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 372
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 373
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 374
characterized as follow-up items. 375
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 376
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 377
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 378
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 379
HyperEdge; 380
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 381
SuperEdge; 382
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 383
SuperHyperEdge. 384
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 385
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 386
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [197], Definition 2.7, p.3). 387
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 388
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 389
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 390
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 391
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 392
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 393
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)). 394
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 395
pair S = (V, E), where 396
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 397
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 398
1, 2, . . . , n); 399
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 400
V; 401
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 402
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 403
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 404
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 405
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 406
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 407
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 408
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 409
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 410
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 411
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 412
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 413
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 414
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 415
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 416
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 417
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 418
(Ref. [197],Definition 2.7,p.3). 419
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 420
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 421
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 422
characterized as follow-up items. 423
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 424
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 425
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 426
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 427
HyperEdge; 428
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 429
SuperEdge; 430
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 431
SuperHyperEdge. 432
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 433
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 434
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 435
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 436
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 437
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 438
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 439
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 440
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 441
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 442
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 443
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 444
given SuperHyperEdges; 445
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 446
SuperHyperEdges; 447
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 448
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 449
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 450
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 451
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 452
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 453
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 454
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 455
common SuperVertex. 456
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 457
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 458
of following conditions hold: 459
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 460
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 461
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 462
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 463
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 464
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 465
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 466
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 467
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 468
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 469
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 470
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. 471
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 472
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 473
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 474
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 475
SuperHyperPath . 476
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 477
(Ref. [197],Definition 5.3,p.7). 478
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 479
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 480
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 481
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 482
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 483
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 484
(NSHE)). (Ref. [197],Definition 5.4,p.7). 485
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 486
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 487
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 488
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 489
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 490
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 491
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 492
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 494
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 495
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 497
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 498
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 499
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 500
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 501
SuperHyperDominating-Edges). 502
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 504
either V 0 or E 0 is called 505
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 506

(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is 508
called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges criteria holds 509

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 510
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 511

(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is 513
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges criteria holds 514

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 515
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 516
e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 517
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and Neutrosophic 518
rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 519
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDominating-Edges). 520
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 523
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 527
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 528
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 529
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 530
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 531
rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 534
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 535
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 536
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 538
SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 539
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 540
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic 541
re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and 542
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 544
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 545
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 546
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 547
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 548
Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 549
Extreme coefficient; 550
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 551
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 555
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 556
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 557
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 558
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 559
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the Neutrosophic power 560
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 561
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 562
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 566
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 567
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 568
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 569
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 570
rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 573
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 574
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 575
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 577
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 579
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 585
Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 588
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 590
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 596
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the Neutrosophic power 599
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 600
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperDominating-Edges). 601
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 602
(i) an δ−SuperHyperDominating-Edges is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 603
SuperHyperDominating-Edges such that either of the following expressions hold for the 604
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 605
|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 606
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 607
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDominating-Edges is a Neutrosophic kind of 608
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges such that either of the following 609
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 610
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 611
|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. 612
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 613
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 614
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges, there’s a need to 615
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 616
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 617
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 618
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 619
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 620
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 621
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 622
understandable. 623
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 624
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 625
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperDominating-Edges, SuperHyperStar, 626
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 627
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 628
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 629
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic 630
SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 631
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 632
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 633
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges more Neutrosophicly understandable. 634
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges, there’s a need to 635
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges”. The 636
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 637
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 638
assign to the values. 639
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperDominating-Edges. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 640
SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the Table (3) holds. 641

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But As The Dominating-Edges 642
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 643
Forms 644
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 645
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V is called 647
Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is called 648
Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic probability 649
of A. 650
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 651
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 653
Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 654
s-independent criteria 655
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 656
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 657
criteria 658
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 659
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Any k-function Dominating-Edges like E is called 661
Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Dominating-Edges like E is called 662
Neutrosophic Variable. 663
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 664
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 665
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a number is 667
called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 668
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 669
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 670
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. A Neutrosophic number is called 672
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 673
Crossing criteria 674
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 675
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let m and n propose 676
special Dominating-Edges. Then with m ≥ 4n, 677
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 678
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 679
Neutrosophic independently with probability Dominating-Edges p := 4n/m, and set 680
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 681
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 682
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
683
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 684
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let P be a SuperHyperSet 685
of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the 686
plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then 687
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 688
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 689
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points 690
on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 691
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 692
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 693
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 694
2 3
again l < 32n /k . 695
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let P be a SuperHyperSet 697
of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 698
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 699
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 700
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 701
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 702
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 703
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
704
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 705
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on 706
the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 707
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 708
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 709
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 710
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 711
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 712
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 713
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 714
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 715
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let X be a nonnegative 716
Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 717
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. 718
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 719
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let Xn be a nonnegative 720
integer-valued variable in a probability Dominating-Edges (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as 721
n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 722
Proof. 723
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. A special 725
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 726
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p 728
is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 729
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 730
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 731
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 732
G. 733
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 734
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 735
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 736
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 737
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: 738
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 739
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 740
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 741
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 742
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 743
stability number at most k. 744
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 745
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a number is 747
called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 748
Variance criteria 749
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let X be a Neutrosophic 751
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 752
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let X be a Neutrosophic Variable 754
and let t be a positive real number. Then 755
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
756
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let Xn be a Neutrosophic 758
Variable in a probability Dominating-Edges (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 759
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 760
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 762
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 763
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 764
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 766
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 767
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 768
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 769
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. As in the proof of related Theorem, 771
the result is straightforward. 772
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f 774
and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 775
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 776
or 777
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 778
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. The latter is straightforward. 780
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 781
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let P be a monotone property of 783
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 784
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 785
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 786
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 787
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 788
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 790
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 791
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 792
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let F be a nonempty 794
balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 795
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 796
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 797
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. The latter is straightforward. 799
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 800
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 801
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 802
SuperHyperDominating-Edges, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 803
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 804
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 805
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 806
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 807
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 808
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 809
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 810
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 811
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges

= {}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Dominating-Edges
= {}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Dominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
812
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 815
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 816
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 817
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 818
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 819
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 820


= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
822
straightforward. 825

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
826



= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
830


= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |{Ei ∈EN SHG }| .
= {V5 }.
= z7.
834

= {Ei22
i=1
}.
X |E 22 |
= z ii=1 .
= {Vi11
i=1
}.
X |V 11 |
= z ii=1 .

838

= {E3i+12i=0 , E2i+15i=0 }.
X |E 2 ,E 5 |
= z 3i+1i=0 2i+1i=0 .
= {V3i+12i=0 }.
X |V 2 |
= z 3i+1i=0 .
842


= {E2 , E4 }.
= z5 + z3.
= {V13 }.
= z5.
846

= {E3i+13i=0 , E2i+14i=0 , E3i7i=4 }.
X |E 3 ,E 4 ,E 7 |
= z 3i+1i=0 2i+1i=0 3ii=4 .
= {V3i+13i=0 }.
X |V 3 |
= z 3i+1i=0 .
850


Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)

= {E2 , , E5 , E6 , E7 }.
= z 5 + z 3 + 2z 2 .
= {V13 }.
= z5.
854

= {E3 , E4 , E5 , E8 }.
= z 3 + 3z 2 .
= {V6 }.
= z5.
858


= {E1 , E6 }.
= z5 + z2.
= {V8 }.
= z8.
862

= {E3 , E4 , E5 , E8 }.
= z 3 + 3z 2 .
= {V6 }.
= z5.
866




= {E1 }.
= z2.
= {V3 }.
= z5.
870


= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
= {Vi ∈ VEi+3 ∈EN SHG }.
X |V ∈V
= z i Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
874

= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
878


= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
882

= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
886




= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
890

= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei ∈EN SHG | .
= {V1 }.
= z6.
894


= {E1 , E2 }.
= z 10 + z 2 .
= {V1 }.
= z5.
898

= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }i6=1 .
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG |i6=1 .
= {Vi ∈ VEi+3 ∈EN SHG }i6=1 .
X |V ∈V
= z i Ei+3 ∈EN SHG |i6=1 .


902
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 903
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 904
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 905
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 906
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 907
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 908
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 909
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 910
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 911
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges minus all Neutrosophic 912
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 913
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 914
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges, minus all 915
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 916
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Dominating-Edges is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges 917
is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of 918
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Neutrosophic 919
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Neutrosophic 920
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 921
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges in some cases but the 922
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Neutrosophic 923
number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 924
are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges. 925
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Dominating-Edges has, the least Neutrosophic
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality, is the
Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Dominating-Edges with the least Neutrosophic 926
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 927
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 928
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 929
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Dominating−Edges

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Dominating−Edges = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Dominating-Edges. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower 930
sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Dominating-Edges is the 931
cardinality of 932

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Dominating−Edges = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

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

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

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

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

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Dominating-Edges. 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 933
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 934
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 935
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 936
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 937
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 938
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 939
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 940
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges decorates the

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Neutrosophic connections so
as this Neutrosophic style implies different versions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
with the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Neutrosophic bound is to have the
maximum Neutrosophic groups of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have perfect
Neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the
used Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its Neutrosophic properties taken
from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no
Neutrosophic connection. Furthermore, the Neutrosophic existence of one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has no Neutrosophic effect to talk about the Neutrosophic
R-Dominating-Edges. Since at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices involve to make a
title in the Neutrosophic background of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
but at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices make the Neutrosophic version of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the Neutrosophic setting of non-obvious
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge.
It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as Neutrosophic adjective for
the initial Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no Neutrosophic appearance
of the loop Neutrosophic version of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The Neutrosophic adjective “loop”

on the basic Neutrosophic framework engages one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but
it never happens in this Neutrosophic setting. With these Neutrosophic bases, on a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
thus there’s at least a Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges has the Neutrosophic cardinality of
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges has the
Neutrosophic cardinality at least a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Assume a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a
Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges since either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is an
obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no
Neutrosophic usage of this Neutrosophic framework and even more there’s no
Neutrosophic connection inside or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and
as its consequences, there’s a Neutrosophic contradiction with the term “Neutrosophic
R-Dominating-Edges” since the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality never happens for this
Neutrosophic style of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no
Neutrosophic connection inside as mentioned in first Neutrosophic case in the forms of
drawback for this selected Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This Neutrosophic case implies having the Neutrosophic style of
on-quasi-triangle Neutrosophic style on the every Neutrosophic elements of this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges is the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that some
Neutrosophic amount of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle
Neutrosophic style. The Neutrosophic cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
But the lower Neutrosophic bound is up. Thus the minimum Neutrosophic cardinality
of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality ends up the Neutrosophic discussion. The
first Neutrosophic term refers to the Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClass of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has no on-quasi-triangle
Neutrosophic style amid some amount of its Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. This
Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet has only some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Neutrosophic amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The Neutrosophic cardinality of this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the Neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
Neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that
Contains some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used 941
Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case and the 942
common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific Neutrosophic 943
SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are Neutrosophic 944
free-quasi-triangle. 945
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has at least no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in
common. Thus those Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be
contained in a Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges. Those Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
are potentially included in a Neutrosophic style-R-Dominating-Edges. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges but
with slightly differences in the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality amid those
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges. Let

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 946
Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
947
Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges where E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic intended
SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could
be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic
cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 948
R-Dominating-Edges is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 949
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 950
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 951
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 952
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges in some 953
cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 954
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 955
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges. 956
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 957
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 958
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 959
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 960
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 961
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 962
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 963
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 964
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 965
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 966
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 967
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges where the 968
Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, 969
a Neutrosophic embedded R-Dominating-Edges. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 970
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 971
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 972
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 973
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. 974
The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are included in the 975
minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges. The 976
interior types of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the 977
Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior 978
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more 979
formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any 980
distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic 981
R-Dominating-Edges. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in 982
one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the 983
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In 984
the embedded Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges, there’s the usage of exterior Neutrosophic 985
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 986
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Neutrosophic 987
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 988
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in 989
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges. 990
The Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges with the exclusion of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic 991
SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the 992
Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges with the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 993
in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges. To sum 994
them up, in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 995
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the 996
maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of 997
any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges minus all Neutrosophic 998
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 999
an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1000
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges, minus all 1001
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1002
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges has two titles. a 1003
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges and its corresponded quasi-maximum Neutrosophic 1004
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any 1005
Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges with that 1006
quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 1007
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1008
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1009
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edgess for all Neutrosophic numbers 1010
less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1011
Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1012
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges, again and more in the operations of collecting all 1013
the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edgess acted on the all possible used formations of the 1014
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic number. This 1015
Neutrosophic number is 1016
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Dominating-Edgess. Let 1017
zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and GNeutrosophic Dominating-Edges be a 1018
Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges. 1019
Then 1020
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Dominating-Edges ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges is 1021
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1022
GNeutrosophic Dominating-Edges ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number
{SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1023
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges. 1024
GNeutrosophic Dominating-Edges =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1025
Dominating-Edges poses the upcoming expressions. 1026
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1027
= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1028

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1029
GNeutrosophic Dominating-Edges ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =


1030
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1031

1032

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1033
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1034
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1035
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1036
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Dominating-Edges” but, precisely, it’s the 1037
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Dominating-Edges” since “Neutrosophic 1038
Quasi-Dominating-Edges” happens “Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges” in a Neutrosophic 1039
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “Neutrosophic 1040
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges” in a 1041
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background 1042
since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise 1043
from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, 1044
“Neutrosophic Quasi-Dominating-Edges”, and “Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges” are up. 1045
Thus, let 1046
zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1047
GNeutrosophic Dominating-Edges be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1048
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges and the new terms are up. 1049
GNeutrosophic Dominating-Edges ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1050
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1051
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1052
And with go back to initial structure, 1053
GNeutrosophic Dominating-Edges ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =


1054
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1055
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

1056

Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1057
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-Dominating-Edges if 1058
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some 1059
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic 1060
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic 1061
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1062
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1063
are coming up. 1064
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges.
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges.

The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1065
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1066
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1067
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic 1068
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1069
Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges is related to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges is up. The obvious
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges is a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. But

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

R-Dominating-Edges. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1070
ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 1071
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 1072
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1073
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges and it’s an Neutrosophic 1074
Dominating-Edges. Since it’s 1075
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Dominating-Edges, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1076
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1077
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1078
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1079
“Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges” 1080
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1081
Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges, 1082
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges amid those
obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1083
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1084
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1085
quasi-R-Dominating-Edges if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic 1086
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1087
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all 1088
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1089
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1090
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1091
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1092
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1093
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1094
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1095
Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges with the least cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic 1096
bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1097
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1098
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1099
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1100
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1101
R-Dominating-Edges. Since it doesn’t have 1102
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1104
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1105
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1106
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1107
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic procedure 1108
such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic 1109
SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1110
outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1111
ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its Neutrosophic 1112
SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the Neutrosophic 1113
SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. There’s only one 1114
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1115
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the 1116
obvious Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic 1117
type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges, VESHE , is a Neutrosophic 1118
SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does 1119
forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in 1120
a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic 1121
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1122
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1123
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1124
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1125
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1126
Neutrosophic R-Dominating-Edges only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1127
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1128
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1129
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1130
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1131
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1132
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1133
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Dominating-Edges, is up. There’s neither empty 1134
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1135
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1136
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges. The Neutrosophic 1137
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1138

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Dominating−Edges = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic . The

Dominating-Edges 1139
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1140
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1141

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1142
ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1143
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1145
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1146
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1147
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1148
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges is up. 1149
The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1150
Dominating-Edges is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two Neutrosophic 1151
SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1152

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 Neutrosophic 1154
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1155
Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1156
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1157

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1158
Dominating-Edges. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1159

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1161
ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 1162
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 1163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1164
called the Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges and it’s an Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges. Since 1165
it’s 1166
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1168
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1169
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1170
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1172

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges , 1173

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1174
Dominating-Edges, not: 1175

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1176

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 Neutrosophic 1177
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1178
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1179
“Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges ” 1180
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1181
Neutrosophic Dominating-Edges , 1182
is only and only 1183

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1184
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1185
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1186
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1187
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1188
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1189
Then 1190

= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
Proof. Let 1191
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1192
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1193
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1194
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 1195
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDominating-Edges. The latter 1196
is straightforward. 1197
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1198
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1199
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1200
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1201
Then 1202

= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
Proof. Let 1203
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Example (16.5)
1204
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1205
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1206

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1210
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1211
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1212
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1214
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

Then 1215

= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= {CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1216
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1217
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1218
There’s a new way to redefine as 1219

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1223
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1224
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1225
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1226
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1227
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1228
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1229

= {Ei ∈ EVa }.
X
= {Va }.
= z |Va | .
Proof. Let 1230
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
1231
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1232
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1233

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Thus the 1236
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1237
SuperHyperDominating-Edges could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus 1238
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1239
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperDominating-Edges taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1240
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1241
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1242
solution 1243
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1244
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1245
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1246
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1247
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1248
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1249
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1250
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Example (16.11)
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1251
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1252

= {Ei ∈ EVa }.
X
= {Va }.
= z |Va | .
Proof. Let 1253
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
1254
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1256

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Thus the 1259
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1260
SuperHyperDominating-Edges could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus 1261
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1262
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1263
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1264
solution 1266
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1268
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1269
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1270
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1271
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1272
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1273
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1274
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1275
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1276

= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= {CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1277
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Example (16.13)
1278
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1280

is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Thus the notion 1283
of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDominating-Edges could 1284
be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperDominating-Edges proposes some longest 1285
SuperHyperDominating-Edges excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1286
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1289
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1290
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1291
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1292
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1294
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1295
For the SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and the 1296
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges, some general results are introduced. 1297
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges is “redefined” 1298
on the positions of the alphabets. 1299
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Then 1300
N eutrosophic SuperHyperDominating − Edges =

{theSuperHyperDominating − Edgesof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperDominating − Edges
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperDominating−Edges. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1301
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1302
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1303
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1304
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges and 1305
SuperHyperDominating-Edges coincide. 1306
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1308
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges if and only if it’s a SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1309
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1311
SuperHyperDominating-Edges if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1312
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1313
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges is its 1314
SuperHyperDominating-Edges and reversely. 1315
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 1316
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1317
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges is 1318
its SuperHyperDominating-Edges and reversely. 1319
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1320
SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t 1321
well-defined. 1322
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1323
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1324
SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t well-defined. 1325
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1327
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1328
SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t well-defined. 1329
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1330
SuperHyperDominating-Edges is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperDominating-Edges is 1331
well-defined. 1332
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1333
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges is well-defined if and only if its 1334
SuperHyperDominating-Edges is well-defined. 1335
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1337
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges is well-defined if and only if its 1338
SuperHyperDominating-Edges is well-defined. 1339
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1340
is 1341
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1342
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1343
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1344
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1345
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1346
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1347
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1348
∅ is 1349
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1350
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1351
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1352
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1353
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1354
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1355
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1356
independent SuperHyperSet is 1357
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1358
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1359
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1360
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1361
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1362
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1363
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1364
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperDominating-Edges/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1365
maximal 1366
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1367
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1368
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1369
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1370
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1371
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1372
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1373
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1374
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1375
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1376
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1377
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1378
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1379
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1380
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1381
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1382
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperDominating-Edges/SuperHyperPath. Then the number 1384
of 1385
(i) : the SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1386
(ii) : the SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1387
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1388
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1389
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1390
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1391
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1392
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1393
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1395
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1396
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1397
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1398
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1399
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1400
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1401
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1402
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1405
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1406
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1407
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1408
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1412
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1413
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1414
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1417
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1418
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1419
is a 1420
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1424
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1425
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1426
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1429
number of 1430
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1434
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1435
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1436
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1437
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1438
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1439
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1441
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1442
(iv) : SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1446
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1447
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1448
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1449
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1450
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1451
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1452
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1453
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1457
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1459
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1461
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1462
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1466
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1467
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1468
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1470
SuperHyperDominating-Edges/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1472
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1473
of a dual 1474
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1478
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1479
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1480
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1482
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1483
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1484
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1490
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1491
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1492
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1493
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1494
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1495
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1496
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such 1497
that 1498
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1499
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1500
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1501
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then 1502
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating-Edges set; 1503
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1504
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1505
Then 1506
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1507
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1508
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1509
which is connected. Then 1510
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1511
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1512
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1513
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1514
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1516
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1517
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1518
a dual SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1519
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1520
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1521
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1522
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1523
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1524
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1525
dual SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1526
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Then 1527
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1528
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1530
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1531
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1532
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1533
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Then 1535
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1536
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1538
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1539
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1540
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1542
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1543
(ii) Γ = 1; 1544
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1545
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1546
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1547
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1548
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1549
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1550
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1551
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1552
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1553
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1554
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1555
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1557
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1558
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1559
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1561
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1562
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1564

bnc ; 1565
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1566
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1568
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1569
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1570
SuperHyperDominating-Edges for N SHF; 1571
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1572
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1573
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1574
SuperHyperDominating-Edges for N SHF : (V, E). 1575
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1576
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1577
SuperHyperSet. Then 1578
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1579
SuperHyperDominating-Edges for N SHF; 1580
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1581

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1582
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1583
SuperHyperDominating-Edges for N SHF : (V, E). 1584
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1585
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1586
SuperHyperSet. Then 1587
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1588
SuperHyperDominating-Edges for N SHF : (V, E); 1589
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1590

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1591
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperDominating-Edges for 1592
N SHF : (V, E). 1593
Then following statements hold; 1595
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1596
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then S is an 1597
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1598
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1599
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then S is a dual 1600
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1601
Then following statements hold; 1603
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1604
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 1605
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1607
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then S is a dual 1608
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1609
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1610
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1611
statements hold; 1612
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1613
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1614
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1615
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1617
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1619
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1620
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1621
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1622
statements hold; 1623
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1624
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1626
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1628
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1630
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1631
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1633
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1634
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−12 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1635
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1637
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1639
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1642
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1644
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1645
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1646
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1648
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1650
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1651
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1653
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1655
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Then following statements hold; 1656
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1657
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1659
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1661
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1664
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1666
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Then following statements hold; 1667
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1668
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1670
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1672
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1675
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1676
Neutrosophic Recognition 1677
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1678
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1679
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1680
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1681
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1682
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1683
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1684
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1685
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1686
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1687
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1688
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1689
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1690
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1691
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1692
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1693
happened and what’s done. 1694
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1695
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1696
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1697
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1698
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperDominating-Edges, SuperHyperStar, 1699
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1700
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges or the Neutrosophic 1701
SuperHyperDominating-Edges in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1702
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1703
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1704
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1705
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1706
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1707
featured. 1708
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1709
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1710
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1711
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1712
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1713
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1715
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1716
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1717
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1718
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1719
Neutrosophic featured. 1720
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1721
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1722
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1723
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1724
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1725
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1727
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1728
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1729
The SuperHyperDominating-Edges and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges are 1730
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1731
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1732
recognitions? 1733
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperDominating-Edges 1734
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges? 1735
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1736
compute them? 1737
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1738
SuperHyperDominating-Edges and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges? 1739
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperDominating-Edges and the Neutrosophic 1740
SuperHyperDominating-Edges do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re 1741
based on SuperHyperDominating-Edges, are there else? 1742
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1743
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1744
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1745
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1746
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1747
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1748
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1749
highlighted. 1750
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1751
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1752
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 1753
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based 1754
on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1755
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges, finds the convenient 1756
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1757
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1758
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1759
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1760
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperDominating-Edges, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1761
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1762
the SuperHyperDominating-Edges and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges. The 1763
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1764
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1765
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1766
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1767
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1768
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1769
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1770
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1771
formally called “ SuperHyperDominating-Edges” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1772
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1773
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperDominating-Edges
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1774
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1775
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1776
Forms 1778
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1779
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1783
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1784
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1785
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1786
|Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1787
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1788
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1789
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1790
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1791
|Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1792
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1793
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1794
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1795
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1796
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1799
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1801
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1802
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1803
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1804
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1806
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1807
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1810
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1811
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1814
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1815
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1816
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1817
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1818
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1820
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1821
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1823
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1825
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1826
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1828
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1829
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1830
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1831
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 1832
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 1833
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1834
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1835
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1836
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1841
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1843
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1844
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1848
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1851
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1852
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1857
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1858
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1860
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1862
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1868
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1871
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1872
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1876
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1877
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1878
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1879
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1880
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1881
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1882
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1883
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
SuperHyperDuality. 1892


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1955
ESHP : (V, E). Then 1956
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1957
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1961
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1965
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1966
ESHC : (V, E). Then 1967
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1968
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 1979
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1980
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1990
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 1993
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 1998
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1999
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2000
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2001
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2002
solution 2005
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2012

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2015
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2016

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2022
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2027
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2035
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 2037
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2038
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2039
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2040

∃!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 2045
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2046
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2053
Forms 2055
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2056
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2060
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2061
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2062
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2063
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2065
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2066
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2067
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2068
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2070
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2071
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2072
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2073
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2076
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2077
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2078
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 2079
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2080
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2081
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2083
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2084
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2086
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2087
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2091
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2092
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2093
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2094
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2095
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2100
coefficient; 2101
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2102
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2105
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2107
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2108
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2111
coefficient; 2112
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2113
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2116
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2117
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2118
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2120
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2121
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2128
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2129
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2137
coefficient; 2138
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2139
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2148
coefficient. 2149
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2153
SuperHyperJoin. 2161
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

.
Proof. Let 2235
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2239
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2243

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

.
Proof. Let 2246
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2257
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2258

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2268
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2271
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 2276
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2277
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2278
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2280
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2281
solution 2283
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2290

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2293
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2294

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2298
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2299
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2300
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2305
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2313

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

.
Proof. Let 2316
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2317

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2321
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2322
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2323
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2324
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2331
Forms 2333
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2334
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2338
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2339
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2340
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2341
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2343
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2344
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2345
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2346
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2348
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2349
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2350
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2351
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2354
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2356
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2359
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2361
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2362
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2369
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2370
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2371
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2372
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2378
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2380
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2381
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2386
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2389
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2391
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2396
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2398
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2399
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2406
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2407
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2415
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2417
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2423
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2426
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2431
SuperHyperPerfect. 2439
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2513
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2517
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2521
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2524
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2535
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2536

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2546
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2549
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 2554
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2555
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2556
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2557
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2558
solution 2561
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2568

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2571
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2572

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2576
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2577
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2578
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2583
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2591
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2594

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2595

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2599
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2600
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2601
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2602
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2609
Forms 2611
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2612
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2616
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2617
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2618
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2619
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2621
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2622
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2623
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2624
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2626
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2627
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2628
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2629
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2632
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2634
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2637
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2639
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2640
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2642
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2647
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2648
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2649
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2656
coefficient; 2657
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2658
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2664
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2667
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2669
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2674
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2676
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2677
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2684
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2685
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2693
coefficient; 2694
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2695
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2704
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2709
SuperHyperTotal. 2717
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2791
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2795
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2799
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2802
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2813
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2814
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2824
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2827
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2832
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2833
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2836
solution 2839
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2846

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2849
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2850

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2854
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2855
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2861
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2869
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2872
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2873

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2877
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2878
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2879
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2880
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2887
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2888
Forms 2889
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2890
SuperHyperConnected). 2891
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2895
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2896
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2897
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2898
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2899
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2900
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2902
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2903
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2904
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2905
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2906
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2907
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2909
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2910
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2911
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2912
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2915
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2917
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2918
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2919
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2920
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2922
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2923
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2926
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2927
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2930
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2931
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2932
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2933
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2934
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2935
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2936
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2937
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2938
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2939
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2940
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2941
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2942
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2943
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2944
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2947
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2950
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2951
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2952
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2955
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2956
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 2957
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 2958
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2959
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2960
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2963
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2964
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2967
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2968
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2971
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 2974
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2977
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2979
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2982
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2985
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2988
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 2989
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2993
SuperHyperConnected. 3001
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3075
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3079
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3083
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3086
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3097
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3098
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3108
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3111
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3116
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3117
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3120
solution 3123
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3130
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3133
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3138
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3139
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3145
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3153
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3156
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3158

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3161
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3162
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3163
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3164
17 Background 3172
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3173
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3174
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3175
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3176
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett 3177
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3178
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3179
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3180
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3181
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3182
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3183
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3184
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3185
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3186
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3187
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3188
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3189
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3190
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3191
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3192
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3193
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3194
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3195
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3196
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3197
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3198
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3199
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3200
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3201
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3202
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3203
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3204
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3205
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3206
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3207
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3208
SuperHyperNumbers. 3209
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3210
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3211
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research 3212
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3213
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3214
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3215
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3216
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 3217
16-24. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3218
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3219
results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing 3220
Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside 3221
(Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 3222
(2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by 3223
Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3224
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3225
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3226
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3227
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3228
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3229
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3230
in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3231
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3232
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3233
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3234
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3235
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3236
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3237
in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3238
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3239
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3240
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3241
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3242
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3243
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3244
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3245
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry 3246
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3247
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3248
Beyond ” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3249
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3250
in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3251
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3252
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3253
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3254
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett 3255
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3256
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3257
in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3258
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3259
Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3260
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3261
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3262
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3263
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3264
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3265
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3266
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3267
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3268
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3269
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3270
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3271
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [167] by Henry 3272
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3273
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3274
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [168] by Henry Garrett 3275
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3276
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3277
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [169] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3278
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3279
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3280
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [170] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3281
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3282
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [173] by 3283
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3284
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3285
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [174] by Henry 3286
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3287
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3288
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [177] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3289
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3290
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [180] by Henry 3291
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3292
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3293
in Ref. [181] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3294
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3295
Ref. [182] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3296
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3297
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [183] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3298
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3299
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [184] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3300
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3301
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [185] by Henry Garrett 3302
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3303
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [196] by Henry 3304
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3305
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3306
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [197] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–197], there 3307
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3308
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3309
at [198–309]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3310
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [310, 311]. 3311
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3312
proposed as book in Ref. [310] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3313
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3314
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3315
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3316
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3317
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3318
proposed as book in Ref. [311] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3319
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3320
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3321
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3322
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3323
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3324
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3325
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3326
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3327
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3328
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–197] 3329
alongside scientific research books at [198–309]. Two popular scientific research books 3330
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic 3331
science is on [310, 311]. 3332
References 3333
1. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3334
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3335
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3336
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3337
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3338
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3339
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3340
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3341
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3342
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3343
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3344
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3345
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3346
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3347
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3348
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3349
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3350
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3351
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. 3352
(https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/neutrosophic-codegree- 3353
and-neutrosophic-degree-alongside-chromatic-numbers-in-the-setting-of-some- 3354
classes-related-to-neut.pdf) 3355
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3356
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3357
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3358
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3359
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3360
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3361
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3362
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3363
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3364
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3365
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3366
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3367
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3369
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3370
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3371
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3372
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3373
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3374
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3375
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3376
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3377
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3378
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3379
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3380
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3381
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3382
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3383
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3384
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3385
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3386
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3387
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3388
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3389
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3390
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3391
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3392
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3393
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3394
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3395
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3396
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3397
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3398
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3399
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3400
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3401
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3402
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3403
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3404
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3405
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3406
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3407
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3408
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3409
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3410
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3412
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3416
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3417
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3418
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3419
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3420
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3421
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3422
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3423
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3424
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3425
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3426
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3427
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3428
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3429
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3430
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3431
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3432
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3433
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3434
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3435
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3436
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3437
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3438
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3439
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3440
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3441
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3443
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3444
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3445
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3446
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904671). 3447
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3449
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3450
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3451
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3452
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3453
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3454
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3455
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3457
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3458
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3460
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3463
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3466
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3469
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3470
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3472
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3475
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7853867). 3476
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3477
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3478
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3481
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3484
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3487
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3488
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3490
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3493
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3494
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3496
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3499
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3502
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3505
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3508
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3511
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3512
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3514
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3515
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3517
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3518
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3520
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3523
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3526
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3527
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3529
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3532
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3533
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3534
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3536
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3537
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3539
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3540
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3541
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3542
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3545
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3548
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3549
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3551
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3552
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3554
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3557
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3560
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3563
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3566
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3569
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3572
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3575
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3578
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3580
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3581
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3582
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3587
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3588
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3589
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3590
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3591
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3593
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3596
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3599
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3600
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3602
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3603
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3605
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3606
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3607
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3608
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3609
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3611
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3614
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3617
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3618
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3620
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3623
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3625
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3627
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3629
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3631
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3632
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3635
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3637
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3638
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3641
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3643
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3645
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3647
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3649
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3650
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3653
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3654
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3656
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3659
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3661
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3663
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3665
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3666
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3668
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3670
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3672
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3674
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3675
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3676
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3677
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3678
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3680
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3681
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3682
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3683
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3686
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3688
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3689
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3692
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3694
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3695
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3698
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3700
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3702
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3704
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3705
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3706
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3707
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3710
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3711
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3712
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3713
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3716
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3717
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3718
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3719
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3722
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3723
120. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3724
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3725
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3728
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3729
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3730
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3731
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3734
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3735
124. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3736
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3737
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3739
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3740
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3743
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3744
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3745
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3746
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3749
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3750
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3751
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3752
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3755
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3757
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3758
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3761
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3763
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3764
134. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3766
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3767
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3770
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3773
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3775
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3776
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3778
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3779
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3781
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3782
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3783
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3784
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3785
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3786
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3787
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3788
142. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3790
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3791
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3792
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3793
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3794
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3795
144. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3796
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3797
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3798
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3799
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3802
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3803
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3806
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3807
147. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3808
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3810
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3811
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3814
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3815
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3818
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3819
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3820
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3821
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3822
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3823
151. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3824
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3825
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3826
152. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3827
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3828
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3829
153. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3830
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3831
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3832
154. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3833
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3834
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3835
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3836
155. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3837
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3838
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3839
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3840
156. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3841
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3842
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3843
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3844
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3845
157. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3846
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3847
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3848
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3849
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3850
158. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3851
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3852
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3853
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3854
159. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3855
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3856
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3857
160. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3858
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3861
161. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3862
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3863
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3864
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3865
162. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3866
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3867
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3868
163. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3869
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3870
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3871
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3872
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3873
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3874
164. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3875
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3876
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3877
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3878
165. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3879
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3880
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3881
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3882
166. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3883
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3884
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3885
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3886
167. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3887
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3888
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3889
168. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3890
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3891
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3892
169. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3894
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3895
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3896
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3897
170. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3898
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3899
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3900
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3901
171. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3902
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3903
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3904
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3905
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3907
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3908
173. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3909
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3910
174. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3912
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3913
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3914
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3919
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3923
177. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3924
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3925
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3926
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3927
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3930
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3932
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3933
180. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3934
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3935
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3938
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3939
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3941
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3942
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3945
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3946
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3948
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3949
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3952
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3953
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3955
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3956
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3958
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3963
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3964
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3968
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3969
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3972
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3975
192. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3976
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3977
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3978
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3979
193. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3980
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3981
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3982
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3983
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3986
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3987
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3990
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3991
196. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3992
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3993
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3994
197. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3995
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3996
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3997
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3998
198. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3999
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 4000
199. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4001
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7905287). 4002
200. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4003
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 4004
201. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4005
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7874677). 4006
202. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4007
203. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4009
204. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4011
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 4012
205. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4013
206. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4015
207. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4017
208. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4019
209. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4021
210. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4023
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4024
211. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4025
212. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4027
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4028
213. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4029
214. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4031
215. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4033
216. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4035
217. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4037
218. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4039
219. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4041
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4042
220. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4043
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4044
221. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4045
222. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4047
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4048
223. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4049
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4050
224. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4051
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4052
225. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4053
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4054
226. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4055
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4056
227. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4057
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4058
228. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4059
229. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4061
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4062
230. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4063
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4064
231. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4065
232. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4067
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4068
233. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4069
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4070
234. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4071
235. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4073
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4074
236. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4075
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4076
237. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4077
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4078
238. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4079
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4080
239. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4081
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4082
240. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4083
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4084
241. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4085
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4086
242. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4087
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4088
243. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4089
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4090
244. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4091
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4092
245. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4093
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4094
246. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4095
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4096
247. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4097
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4098
248. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4099
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4100
249. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4101
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4102
250. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4103
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4104
251. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4105
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4106
252. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4107
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4108
253. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4109
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4110
254. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4111
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4112
255. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4113
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4114
256. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4115
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4116
257. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4117
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4118
258. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4119
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4120
259. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4121
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4122
260. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4123
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4124
261. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4125
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4126
262. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4127
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4128
263. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4129
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4130
264. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4131
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4132
265. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4133
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4134
266. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4135
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4136
267. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4137
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4138
268. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4139
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4140
269. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4141
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4142
270. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4143
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4144
271. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4145
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4146
272. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4147
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4148
273. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4149
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4150
274. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4151
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4152
275. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4153
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4154
276. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4155
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4156
277. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4157
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4158
278. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4159
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4160
279. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4161
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4162
280. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4163
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4164
281. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4165
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4166
282. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4167
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4168
283. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4169
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4170
284. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4171
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4172
285. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4173
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4174
286. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4175
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4176
287. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4177
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4178
288. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4179
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4180
289. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4181
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4182
290. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4183
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4184
291. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4185
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4186
292. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4187
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4188
293. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4189
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4190
294. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4191
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4192
295. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4193
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4194
296. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4195
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4196
297. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4197
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4198
298. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4199
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4200
299. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4201
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4202
300. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4203
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4204
301. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4205
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4206
302. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4207
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4208
303. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4209
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4210
304. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4211
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4212
305. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4213
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4214
306. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4215
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4216
307. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4217
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4218
308. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4219
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4220
309. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4221
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4222
310. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4223
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4224
311. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4225
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4226
View publication stats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · May 2023

473 PUBLICATIONS 16,841 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On 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

SuperHyperDominating-Edges). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 10

Dominating-Edges pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges criteria holds 14

E ∈ EN SHG either of its endpoints or one SuperHyperVertex

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 15

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges criteria holds 16

E ∈ EN SHG either of its endpoints or one SuperHyperVertex

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 17

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 18

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges criteria holds 19

E ∈ EN SHG either of its endpoints or one SuperHyperVertex

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges criteria holds 21

E ∈ EN SHG either of its endpoints or one SuperHyperVertex

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

SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 23

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and 24

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDominating-Edges). 25

Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a 26

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an 27

Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 28

e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic 29

v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and 30

cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 32

SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 33

and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 34

SuperHyperDominating-Edges; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of 35

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 36

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges 37

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 39

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 40

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 41

Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges; an Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges 42

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 43

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and 44

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 45

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 46

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 47

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 48

Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 49

Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 51

SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 52

e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic 53

v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and 54

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 55

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 56

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 57

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 58

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 59