New Ideas On Super Eddy by Hyper Dome of Dominating-Edges in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/370817003
New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of Dominating-Edges In Cancer's

Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · May 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7943578
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
474 PUBLICATIONS 16,977 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Combinatorics View project
Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 17 May 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 2
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
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: SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Cancer’s Recognition 217
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 218
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 219
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 220
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 221
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 222
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 223
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 224
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 225
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 226
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 227
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 228
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 229
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 230
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 231
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 232
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 233
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 234
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 235
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 236
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 237
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 238
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 239
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 240
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 241
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 242
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 243
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 244
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 245
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 246
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 247
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 248
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 249
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 250
formally called “ SuperHyperDominating-Edges” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 251
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 252
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 253
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 254
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 255
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 256
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 257
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 258
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 259
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 260
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 261
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 262
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperDominating-Edges, SuperHyperStar, 263
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 264
either the optimal SuperHyperDominating-Edges or the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges in 265
those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 266
SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two 267
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 268
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperDominating-Edges. There isn’t any 269
formation of any SuperHyperDominating-Edges but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 270
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 271
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 272
find the “ amount of SuperHyperDominating-Edges” of either individual of cells or the groups 273
of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 274
SuperHyperDominating-Edges” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 275
cells? 276
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 277
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 278
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 279
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 280
SuperHyperDominating-Edges” and “Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges” on 281
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 282
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 283
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 284
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 285
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 286
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 287
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 288
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 289
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 290
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 291
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 292
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 293
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperDominating-Edges and 294
Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges, are figured out in sections “ 295
SuperHyperDominating-Edges” and “Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges”. In the sense of 296
tackling on getting results and in Dominating-Edges to make sense about continuing the 297
research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are 298
introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out 299
to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 300
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there 301
are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 302
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 303
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The 304
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 305
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 306
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 307
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 308
SuperHyperDominating-Edges”, “Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges”, “Results on 309
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 310
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 311
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 312
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperDominating-Edges”. The 313
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 314
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 315
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 316
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 317
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 318
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 319
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 320
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 321
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 322
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 323
Research On the Redeemed Ways 324
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 325
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [197],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 326
Set](Ref. [197],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 327
(NSHG)](Ref. [197],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 328
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [197],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [197], 329
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 330
(NSHG)](Ref. [197],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 331
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [197],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 332
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [197],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 333
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [197]. 334
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 335
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 336
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [197],Definition 2.1,p.1). 337
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 338
+
]− 0, 1 [. 339
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [197],Definition 2.2,p.2). 340
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 341
2.5,p.2). 342
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 343
pair S = (V, E), where 344
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 345
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 346
1, 2, . . . , n); 347
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 348
V; 349
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 350
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 351
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 352
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 353
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 354
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );
P
(viii) i0 355
(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 . 356
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 357
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 358
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 359
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 360
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 361
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 362
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 363
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 364
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 365
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 366
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 367
(Ref. [197],Definition 2.7,p.3). 368
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 369
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 370
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 371
characterized as follow-up items. 372
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 373
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 374
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 375
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 376
HyperEdge; 377
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 378
SuperEdge; 379
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 380
SuperHyperEdge. 381
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 382
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 383
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [197], Definition 2.7, p.3). 384
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 385
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 386
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 387
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 388
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 389
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 390
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)). 391
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 392
pair S = (V, E), where 393
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 394
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 395
1, 2, . . . , n); 396
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 397
V; 398
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 399
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 400
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 401
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 402
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 403
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 404
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 405
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 406
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 407
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 408
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 409
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 410
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 411
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 412
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 413
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 414
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 415
(Ref. [197],Definition 2.7,p.3). 416
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 417
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 418
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 419
characterized as follow-up items. 420
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 421
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 422
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 423
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 424
HyperEdge; 425
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 426
SuperEdge; 427
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 428
SuperHyperEdge. 429
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 430
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 431
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 432
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 433
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 434
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 435
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 436
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 437
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 438
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 439
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 440
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 441
given SuperHyperEdges; 442
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 443
SuperHyperEdges; 444
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 445
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 446
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 447
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 448
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 449
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 450
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 451
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 452
common SuperVertex. 453
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 454
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 455
of following conditions hold: 456
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 457
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 458
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 459
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 460
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 461
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 462
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 463
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 464
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 465
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 466
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 467
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. 468
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 469
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 470
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 471
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 472
SuperHyperPath . 473
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 474
(Ref. [197],Definition 5.3,p.7). 475
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 476
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 477
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 478
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 479
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 480
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 481
(NSHE)). (Ref. [197],Definition 5.4,p.7). 482
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 483
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 484
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 485
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 486
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 487
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 488
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 489
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 491
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 492
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 494
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 495
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 496
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 497
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 498
SuperHyperDominating-Edges). 499
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 501
either V 0 or E 0 is called 502
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 503

(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is 505
called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges criteria holds 506

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 507
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is called 508

(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the following expression is 510
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges criteria holds 511

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 512
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 513
e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 514
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and Neutrosophic 515
rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 516
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDominating-Edges). 517
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 519
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 520
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 524
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 525
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 526
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 527
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 528
rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 531
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 532
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 533
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 535
SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 536
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 537
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic 538
re-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and 539
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 541
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 542
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 543
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 544
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 545
Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 546
Extreme coefficient; 547
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 548
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 552
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 553
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 554
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 555
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 556
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the Neutrosophic power 557
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 558
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 559
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 564
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 565
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 566
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperDominating-Edges if it’s either of Neutrosophic 567
rv-SuperHyperDominating-Edges and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 570
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 571
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 572
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 574
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 576
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 580
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 581
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 582
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 583
Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 585
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 587
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 591
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 592
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 593
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 594
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 595
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges; and the Neutrosophic power 596
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 597
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperDominating-Edges). 598
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 599
(i) an δ−SuperHyperDominating-Edges is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 600
SuperHyperDominating-Edges such that either of the following expressions hold for the 601
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 602
|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 603
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 604
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDominating-Edges is a Neutrosophic kind of 605
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges such that either of the following 606
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 607
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 608
|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. 609
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 610
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 611
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 612
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 613
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 614
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 615
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 616
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 617
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 618
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 619
understandable. 620
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 621
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 622
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperDominating-Edges, SuperHyperStar, 623
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 624
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 625
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 626
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic 627
SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 628
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 629
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 630
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges more Neutrosophicly understandable. 631
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges, there’s a need to 632
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating-Edges”. The 633
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 634
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 635
assign to the values. 636
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperDominating-Edges. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 637
SuperHyperDominating-Edges if the Table (3) holds. 638

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The Dominating-Edges 639
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 640
Forms 641
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 642
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 643
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is called 644
Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called Extreme 645
event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 646
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 647
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 649
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 650
s-independent criteria 651
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 652
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 653
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 654
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Any k-function Dominating-Edges like E is called 656
Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Dominating-Edges like E is called 657
Extreme Variable. 658
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 659
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 660
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 662
called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 663
Expectation criteria 664
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 665
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. an Extreme number is called Extreme 667
Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 668
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 669
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let m and n propose special 670
Dominating-Edges. Then with m ≥ 4n, 671
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 672
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 673
independently with probability Dominating-Edges p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 674
H := G[S]. 675
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

SuperHyperVertices, Y the Extreme number of SuperHyperEdges, and Z the Extreme
number of crossings of H. The trivial bound noted above, when applied to H, yields the
inequality Z ≥ cr(H) ≥ Y − 3X. By linearity of Extreme Expectation,
E(Z) ≥ E(Y ) − 3E(X).
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: 676
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
677
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 678
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points 679
in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the plane passing 680
through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 681
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 682
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points on the 683
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 684
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 685
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 686
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 687
2 3
l < 32n /k . 688
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points 690
in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit SuperHyperDistance. 691
Then k < 5n4/3 . 692
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 693
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Draw a SuperHyperUnit SuperHyperCircle 694
around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number P of these 695
SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0n−1 ni = n and 696
k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
697
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 698
between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at 699
least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 700
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 701
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 702
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 703
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 704
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 705
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 706
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 707
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 708
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let X be a nonnegative 709
Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 710
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. 711
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 712
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let Xn be a nonnegative 713
integer-valued variable in a probability Dominating-Edges (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as 714
n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 715
Proof. 716
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 717
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. A special 718
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 719
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. Let 721
G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, where 722
k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this 723
being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S 724
is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 725
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 726
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 727
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 728
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 729
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: 730
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 731
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 732
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 733
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 734
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 735
number at most k. 736
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 737
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 739
called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme Variance 740
criteria 741
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let X be an Extreme 743
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 744
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let t be a 746
positive real number. Then 747
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
748
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let Xn be an Extreme 750
Variable in a probability Dominating-Edges (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 751
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 752
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 754
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 755
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 756
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set 758
f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 759
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 760
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. As in the proof of related Theorem, the result 762
is straightforward. 763
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f 765
and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 766
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 767
or 768
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 769
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. The latter is straightforward. 771
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 772
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let P be a monotone property of 774
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 775
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 776
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 777
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 778
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 779
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let F be a fixed Extreme SuperHyperGraph. 781
Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a copy of F as an 782
Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 783
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. Let F be a nonempty 785
balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 786
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 787
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 788
S = (V, E) is a probability Dominating-Edges. The latter is straightforward. 790
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 791
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 792
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 793
SuperHyperDominating-Edges, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 794
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 795
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 796
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 797
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 798
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 799
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Extreme Example (16.3)
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 800
Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 801
C(N SHG)Extreme Dominating-Edges

= {}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Dominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Dominating-Edges
= {}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Dominating-Edges SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
802
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 805
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 806
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 807
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 808
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 809
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme 810
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 811

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

812
straightforward. 815

= {}.
= 0z 0 .
= {}.
= 0z 0 .
816

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


820

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

824

= {Ei22
i=1
}.
X |E 22 |
= z ii=1 .
= {Vi11
i=1
}.
X |V 11 |
= z ii=1 .
828


= {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 .
832

= {E2 , E4 }.
= z5 + z3.
= {V13 }.
= z5.
836




= {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 .
840

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

844

= {E3 , E4 , E5 , E8 }.
= z 3 + 3z 2 .
= {V6 }.
= z5.
848

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

852

= {E3 , E4 , E5 , E8 }.
= z 3 + 3z 2 .
= {V6 }.
= z5.
856

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



860

= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
= {Vi ∈ VEi+3 ∈EN SHG }.
X |V ∈V
= z i Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
864


= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
868

= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
872




= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
876

= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
880


= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei ∈EN SHG | .
= {V1 }.
= z6.
884

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



888

= {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 .
892
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 893
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edges 894
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 895
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 896
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 897
them. 898
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 899
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 900
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 901
any given Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edges minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 902
of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 903
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 904
an Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edges, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them 905
but not all of them. 906
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges is at least 907
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 908
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 909
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 910
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Dominating-Edges in 911
some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the 912
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 913
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Dominating-Edges. 914
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Dominating-Edges has, the least Extreme cardinality, the
lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Dominating-Edges with the least Extreme cardinality, the 915
lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 916
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 917
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 918
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Dominating−Edges
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Dominating−Edges = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Dominating-Edges. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower 919
sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Dominating-Edges is the cardinality of 920
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Dominating−Edges = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Dominating-Edges since
neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where
amount refers to the Extreme number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more
than one to form any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges.
Let us consider the Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-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 Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-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 921
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 922
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 923
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 924
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 925
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 926
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 927
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 928
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges decorates the Extreme

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Dominating-Edges for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used Extreme 929
background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common theme of the 930
lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 931
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 932
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

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

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

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

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 933
Extreme R-Dominating-Edges =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
934
Extreme R-Dominating-Edges =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edges where E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is

fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended SuperHyperVertices
but in an Extreme Dominating-Edges, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not
unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If
an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges is at 935
least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 936
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 937
other words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 938
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 939
Dominating-Edges in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge 940
with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 941
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Dominating-Edges. 942
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 943
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 944
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 945
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 946
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 947
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 948
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 949
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 950
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 951
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 952
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edges where 953
the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an 954
Extreme embedded R-Dominating-Edges. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 955
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 956
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 957
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 958
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less 959
than two distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum 960
Extreme style of the embedded Extreme R-Dominating-Edges. The interior types of the 961
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of 962
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 963
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 964
inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme 965
SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges. Thus Extreme exterior 966
SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in 967
Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that 968
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme Dominating-Edges, there’s the usage of 969
exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 970
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 971
Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme 972
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has 973
been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme 974
R-Dominating-Edges. The Extreme R-Dominating-Edges with the exclusion of the exclusion of all 975
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, 976
the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges with the inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 977
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edges. To sum them up, 978
in a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 979
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of 980
the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme 981
quasi-R-Dominating-Edges minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not 982
all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge 983
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme 984
quasi-R-Dominating-Edges, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not 985
all of them. 986
The main definition of the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges has two titles. an Extreme 987
quasi-R-Dominating-Edges and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 988
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 989
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edges with that quasi-maximum Extreme 990
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If 991
there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the Extreme 992
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 993
quasi-R-Dominating-Edgess for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme corresponded 994
maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Dominating-Edges ends up but this essence 995
starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edges, again and more in the 996
operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edgess acted on the all possible 997
used formations of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. 998
This Extreme number is 999
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Dominating-Edgess. Let 1000
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Dominating-Edges be an Extreme 1001
number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and an Extreme Dominating-Edges. Then 1002
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Dominating-Edges ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Dominating-Edges is re-formalized 1003
and redefined as follows. 1004
GExtreme Dominating-Edges ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1005
technical definition for the Extreme Dominating-Edges. 1006
GExtreme Dominating-Edges =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1007
poses the upcoming expressions.

Dominating-Edges 1008
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1009
= maxzExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1010

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1011
GExtreme Dominating-Edges ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1012
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1013
= max zExtreme Number

1014

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1015
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1016
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1017
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1018
Quasi-Dominating-Edges” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1019
Quasi-Dominating-Edges” since “Extreme Quasi-Dominating-Edges” happens “Extreme 1020
Dominating-Edges” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background 1021
but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme Dominating-Edges” in 1022
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since 1023
there are some ambiguities about the Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To 1024
get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme 1025
Quasi-Dominating-Edges”, and “Extreme Dominating-Edges” are up. 1026
Thus, let 1027
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1028
GExtreme Dominating-Edges be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1029
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Dominating-Edges and the new terms are up. 1030
GExtreme Dominating-Edges ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1031
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1032
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1033
And with go back to initial structure, 1034
GExtreme Dominating-Edges ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1035
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1036
= max zExtreme Number

1037

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1038
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edges if for any of 1039
them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme 1040
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme 1041
exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1042
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1043
are coming up. 1044
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,

Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges. The

Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Dominating-Edges C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1045
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1046
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1047
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1048
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1049
Extreme Dominating-Edges is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

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

Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Dominating-Edges C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1050
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1051
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1052
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme 1053
Dominating-Edges and it’s an Extreme Dominating-Edges. Since it’s 1054
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

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

Dominating-Edges, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1055
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1056
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1057
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1058
“Extreme R-Dominating-Edges” 1059
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1060
Extreme R-Dominating-Edges, 1061
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also

it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges amid those obvious
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Dominating-Edges, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1062
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Dominating-Edges. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Dominating-Edges is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1063
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Dominating-Edges if 1064
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1065
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1066
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1067
them. 1068
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1069
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1070
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1071
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1072
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1073
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Dominating-Edges with the least 1074
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1075
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1076
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1077
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1078
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Dominating-Edges. 1079
Since it doesn’t have 1080
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1082
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1083
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1084
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme 1085
R-Dominating-Edges. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that there’s 1086
an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there 1087
are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the 1088
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1089
titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the 1090
Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only 1091
one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1092
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 1093
Extreme R-Dominating-Edges, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1094
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Dominating-Edges, VESHE , is an Extreme 1095
SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any 1096
kind of Extreme pairs are titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme 1097
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1098
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality 1099
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 1100
Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, 1101
in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme 1102
R-Dominating-Edges only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior 1103
Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s 1104
any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1105
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1106
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1107
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1108
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Dominating-Edges, is up. There’s neither empty 1109
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1110
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1111
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Dominating-Edges. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1112
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1113
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Dominating−Edges = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−Dominating−EdgesSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Dominating-Edges. The Extreme 1114
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1115
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Dominating-Edges C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1116
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1117
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1119
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1120
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1121
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1122
non-obvious Extreme Dominating-Edges is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1123
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Dominating-Edges is an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1124
includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1125
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1126
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1127
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1128
Extreme Dominating-Edges is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1129
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1130
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme .

Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1132
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1133
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Dominating-Edges C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1134
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1135
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1136
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Dominating-Edges and it’s 1137
an Extreme Dominating-Edges. Since it’s 1138
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1140
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1141
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1142
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1143
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Dominating-Edges , 1144
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme ,

not: 1146
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1147
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1148
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1149
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1150
“Extreme Dominating-Edges ” 1151
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1152
Extreme Dominating-Edges , 1153
is only and only 1154
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1155
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1156
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1157
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1158
SuperHyperClasses. 1159
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1160

= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
Proof. Let 1161
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1162
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1163
There’s a new way to redefine as 1164
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 1165
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDominating-Edges. The latter 1166
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1168
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1169
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1170
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1171
Then 1172

= {Ei+3 ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= z |Ei+3 ∈EN SHG | .
X |V ∈V
Proof. Let 1173
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1174
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1175

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1180
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1181
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1182
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1183

= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= {CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1184
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1185
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1186
a new way to redefine as 1187

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1191
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1192
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1193
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1194
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1195
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1196
Then 1197

= {Ei ∈ EVa }.
X
= {Va }.
= z |Va | .
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1198
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
1199
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1200

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Thus the 1204
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1205
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Example (16.11)
SuperHyperDominating-Edges could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus 1206
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1207
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperDominating-Edges taken from a connected Extreme 1208
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1209
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1210
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1211
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1212
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1213
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1214
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1215
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1216
Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1217
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1218
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1219

= {Ei ∈ EVa }.
X
= {Va }.
= z |Va | .
Proof. Let 1220
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1221
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1223

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Thus the 1226
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1227
SuperHyperDominating-Edges could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus 1228
every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1229
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1230
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1231
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Example (16.13)
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1234
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1235
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1236
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1237
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 1238
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1239
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1240
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1241

= {Ei ∈ EN SHG }.
X
= {CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1242
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1243
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges in the Extreme Example (16.15)
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1245

is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Thus the notion 1248
of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDominating-Edges could 1249
be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperDominating-Edges proposes some longest 1250
SuperHyperDominating-Edges excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1251
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1253
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1254
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1255
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1256
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1257
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1258
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1259
For the SuperHyperDominating-Edges, Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges, and the Extreme 1260
SuperHyperDominating-Edges, some general results are introduced. 1261
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges is “redefined” on 1262
the positions of the alphabets. 1263
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Then 1264
Extreme SuperHyperDominating − Edges =

{theSuperHyperDominating − Edgesof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperDominating − Edges
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperDominating−Edges. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1265
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1266
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1267
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1268
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges and 1269
SuperHyperDominating-Edges coincide. 1270
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1272
SuperHyperDominating-Edges if and only if it’s a SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1273
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1275
SuperHyperDominating-Edges if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1276
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1277
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges is its 1278
SuperHyperDominating-Edges and reversely. 1279
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperDominating-Edges, 1280
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1281
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges is its 1282
SuperHyperDominating-Edges and reversely. 1283
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1284
SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t 1285
well-defined. 1286
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1287
Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1288
SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t well-defined. 1289
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1291
Then its Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1292
SuperHyperDominating-Edges isn’t well-defined. 1293
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1294
SuperHyperDominating-Edges is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperDominating-Edges is 1295
well-defined. 1296
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1297
its Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges is well-defined if and only if its 1298
SuperHyperDominating-Edges is well-defined. 1299
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1301
Then its Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges is well-defined if and only if its 1302
SuperHyperDominating-Edges is well-defined. 1303
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1304
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1305
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1306
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1307
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1308
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1309
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1310
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1311
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1312
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1313
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1314
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1315
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1316
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1317
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1318
independent SuperHyperSet is 1319
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1320
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1321
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1322
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1323
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1324
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1325
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1326
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperDominating-Edges/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1327
maximal 1328
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1329
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1330
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1331
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1332
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1333
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1334
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1335
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1336
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1337
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1338
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1339
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1340
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1341
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1342
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1343
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1344
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperDominating-Edges/SuperHyperPath. Then the number 1346
of 1347
(i) : the SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1348
(ii) : the SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1349
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1350
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1351
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1352
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1353
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1354
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1355
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1357
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1358
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1359
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1360
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1361
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1362
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1363
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1364
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1367
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1368
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1369
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1370
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1374
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1375
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1376
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1379
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1380
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1381
is a 1382
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1386
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1387
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1388
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1391
number of 1392
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1396
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1397
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1398
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1399
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1400
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1401
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1403
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1404
(iv) : SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1408
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1409
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1410
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1411
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1412
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1413
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1414
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1415
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1419
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1421
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1422
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1423
setting of dual 1424
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1428
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1429
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1430
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1432
SuperHyperDominating-Edges/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1434
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1435
dual 1436
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1440
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1441
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1442
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1444
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1445
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1446
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1452
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1453
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1454
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1455
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1456
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1457
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1458
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1459
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1460
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1461
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then 1462
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating-Edges set; 1463
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1464
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1465
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1466
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1467
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1468
connected. Then 1469
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1470
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1471
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1472
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1473
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1475
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1476
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1477
a dual SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1478
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1479
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1480
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1481
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1482
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1483
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1484
dual SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1485
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Then 1486
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1487
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1489
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1490
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1491
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1492
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Then 1494
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1495
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1497
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1498
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1499
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1501
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1502
(ii) Γ = 1; 1503
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1504
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1505
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1506
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1507
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1508
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1509
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1510
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1511
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1512
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1513
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1514
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1516
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1517
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1518
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1520
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1521
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1523
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 1524
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1525
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1527
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1528
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1529
SuperHyperDominating-Edges for N SHF; 1530
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1531
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1532
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1533
SuperHyperDominating-Edges for N SHF : (V, E). 1534
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1535
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1536
SuperHyperSet. Then 1537
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1538
SuperHyperDominating-Edges for N SHF; 1539
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1540

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1541
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal 1542
SuperHyperDominating-Edges for N SHF : (V, E). 1543
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1544
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1545
SuperHyperSet. Then 1546
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1547
SuperHyperDominating-Edges for N SHF : (V, E); 1548
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1549

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1550
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperDominating-Edges for 1551
N SHF : (V, E). 1552
following statements hold; 1554
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1555
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then S is an 1556
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1557
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1558
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then S is a dual 1559
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1560
following statements hold; 1562
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1563
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 1564
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1566
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges, then S is a dual 1567
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1568
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1569
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1570
hold; 1571
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1572
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1573
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c

+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1574
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1576
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1578
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1579
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1580
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1581
hold; 1582
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1583
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1585
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1587
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1589
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1590
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1592
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1593
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1594
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1596
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1598
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1601
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1603
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1604
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1605
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1607
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1609
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges; 1610
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1612
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1614
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Then following statements hold; 1615
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1616
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1618
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1620
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1623
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1625
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. Then following statements hold; 1626
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1627
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1629
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1631
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1634
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1635
Recognition 1636
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1637
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1638
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1639
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1640
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1641
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1642
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1643
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1644
long-term Extreme function. 1645
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1646
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1647
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1648
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1649
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1650
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1651
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1652
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1653
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1654
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1655
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1656
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperDominating-Edges, SuperHyperStar, 1657
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1658
find either the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges or the Extreme 1659
SuperHyperDominating-Edges in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1660
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1661
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1662
SuperHyperModel 1663
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1664
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1665
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1666
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1667
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1668
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1669
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1670
the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1671
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1672
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1673
SuperHyperModel 1674
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1675
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1676
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

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

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1677
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1678
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1679
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1681
is the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges. 1682
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1683
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1684
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1685
The SuperHyperDominating-Edges and the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges are defined 1686
on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1687
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1688
recognitions? 1689
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperDominating-Edges 1690
and the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges? 1691
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1692
compute them? 1693
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1694
SuperHyperDominating-Edges and the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges? 1695
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperDominating-Edges and the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges do 1696
a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on 1697
SuperHyperDominating-Edges, are there else? 1698
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1699
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1700
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1701
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1702
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1703
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1704
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1705
highlighted. 1706
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1707
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1708
SuperHyperDominating-Edges. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 1709
the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 1710
the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 1711
Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges, finds the convenient background to implement some 1712
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1713
are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks 1714
of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s 1715
Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1716
SuperHyperDominating-Edges, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 1717
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1718
SuperHyperDominating-Edges and the Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges. The clarifications, 1719
instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the 1720
literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 1721
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the 1722
“Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes 1723
the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded 1724
styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based 1725
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with 1726
the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “ 1727
SuperHyperDominating-Edges” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 1728
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 1729
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this research are,
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperDominating-Edges
3. Extreme SuperHyperDominating-Edges 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1730
figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1731
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1732
Forms 1734
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1735
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1736
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1737
V 0 or E 0 is called 1738
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1739
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1740
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1741
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1742
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1743
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1744
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1745
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1746
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1747
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1748
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1749
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1750
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1752
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1753
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1754
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1755
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1756
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1757
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1758
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1760
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1761
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1762
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1763
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1764
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1765
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1766
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1767
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1768
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1769
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1771
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1773
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1774
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1776
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1778
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1788
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1793
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1795
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1796
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1800
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1802
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1803
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1804
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1808
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1809
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1813
Extreme coefficient. 1822
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1826
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1827
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1828
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1829
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1830
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1832
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme 1835
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1836
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1837
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1838
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1839
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1840


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1883
Then 1884
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1885
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1889
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1893
Then 1895
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1896
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1904
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1905
Then 1906
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1907
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1917
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1918
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1919
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1920
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 1925
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1926
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1927
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1928
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1929
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1930
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1938

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1941
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1942

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1948
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1959
Proposition 12.14. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1960
Then, 1961
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1962
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1963
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1964

∃!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 1969
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1970
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 1972
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1973
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1975
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 1976
Forms 1978
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 1979
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E , ∃Ej ∈ E , such that 1983
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 1984
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1985
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1986
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1987
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1988
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 1989
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1990
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 1991
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1992
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 1993
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 1994
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 1995
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 1998
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 1999
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2000
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2004
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2005
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2007
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2011
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2012
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2013
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2014
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2020
coefficient; 2021
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2022
coefficient; 2031
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2032
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2038
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2039
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2043
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2045
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2046
coefficient; 2055
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2056
coefficient. 2065
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2069
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2070
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2075
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2077
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2083


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2127
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

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

.
Proof. Let 2128
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2132
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2136
Then 2138

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

.
Proof. Let 2139
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2147
Then 2149
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2150

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2160
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2163
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 2168
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2169
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2170
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2172
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2181

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2184
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2185
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2186

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2189
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2190
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2191
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2202
Then, 2204

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

.
Proof. Let 2205
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2206

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2210
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2211
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2212
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2213
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2218
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2219
Forms 2221
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2222
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2226
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2227
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2228
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2229
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2230
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2231
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2232
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2233
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2234
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2235
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2236
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2237
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2240
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2242
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2246
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2247
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2249
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2253
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2254
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2255
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2256
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2262
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2264
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2274
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2275
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2279
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2281
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2282
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2283
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2286
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2288
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2289
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2290
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2299
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2312
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2318
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2326


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2370
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2371
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2375
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2379
Then 2381
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2382
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2390
Then 2392
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2393

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2403
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2406
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 2411
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2412
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2413
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2414
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2415
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2424

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2427
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2428

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2432
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2433
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2434
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2445
Then, 2447
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2448
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2449

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2453
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2454
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2455
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2456
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2461
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2462
Forms 2464
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2465
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2469
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2470
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2471
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2472
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2473
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2474
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2475
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2476
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2477
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2478
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2479
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2480
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2483
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2485
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2489
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2490
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2492
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2496
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2497
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2498
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2499
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2505
coefficient; 2506
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2507
coefficient; 2516
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2517
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2523
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2524
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2528
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2530
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2531
coefficient; 2540
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2541
coefficient. 2550
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2554
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2560
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2568


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2612
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2613
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2617
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2621
Then 2623
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2624
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2632
Then 2634
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2635
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2645
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2648
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2653
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2654
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2657
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2666

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2669
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2670
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2671

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2674
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2675
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2687
Then, 2689
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2690
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2691

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2695
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2696
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2697
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2698
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2703
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2704
Forms 2706
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2707
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2711
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2712
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2713
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2714
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2715
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2716
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2717
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2718
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2719
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2720
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2721
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2722
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2723
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2724
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2727
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2729
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2730
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2731
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2732
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2734
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2735
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2738
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2739
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2740
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2741
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2742
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2743
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2745
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2750
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2752
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2753
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2762
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2766
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2767
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2769
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2770
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2774
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2775
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2776
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2777
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2778
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2779
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2780
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2787
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2788
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2800
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2801
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2802
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2803
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2804
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2805
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2806
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2807
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2810
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2811
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2812
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2813
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2815


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2879
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2880
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2884
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2888
Then 2890
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2891
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2894
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2899
Then 2901
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2902
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2912
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2915
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2920
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2921
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2924
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2925
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2933
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2936
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2937

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2941
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2942
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2954
Then, 2956
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2957
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2958

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2962
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2963
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2964
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2965
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2971
17 Background 2972
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2973
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 2974
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 2975
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 2976
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett 2977
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2978
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 2979
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 2980
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 2981
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 2982
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 2983
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 2984
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 2985
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2986
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 2987
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 2988
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 2989
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2990
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 2991
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 2992
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 2993
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 2994
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 2995
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2996
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2997
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 2998
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 2999
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3000
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3001
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3002
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3003
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3004
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3005
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3006
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3007
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3008
SuperHyperNumbers. 3009
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 3010
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 3011
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research 3012
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3013
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 3014
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3015
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 3016
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 3017
16-24. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3018
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3019
results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing 3020
Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside 3021
(Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 3022
(2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by 3023
Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3024
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3025
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3026
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3027
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3028
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3029
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3030
in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3031
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3032
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3033
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3034
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3035
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3036
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3037
in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3038
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3039
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3040
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3041
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3042
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3043
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3044
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3045
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry 3046
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3047
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3048
Beyond ” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3049
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3050
in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3051
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3052
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3053
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3054
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett 3055
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3056
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3057
in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3058
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3059
Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3060
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3061
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3062
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3063
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3064
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3065
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3066
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3067
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3068
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3069
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3070
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3071
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [167] by Henry 3072
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3073
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3074
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [168] by Henry Garrett 3075
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3076
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3077
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [169] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3078
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3079
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3080
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [170] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3081
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3082
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [173] by 3083
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3084
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3085
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [174] by Henry 3086
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3087
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3088
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [177] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3089
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3090
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [180] by Henry 3091
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3092
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3093
in Ref. [181] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3094
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3095
Ref. [182] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3096
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3097
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [183] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3098
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3099
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [184] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3100
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3101
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [185] by Henry Garrett 3102
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3103
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [196] by Henry 3104
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3105
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3106
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [197] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–197], there 3107
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3108
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3109
at [198–309]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3110
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [310, 311]. 3111
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3112
proposed as book in Ref. [310] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3113
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3114
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3115
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3116
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3117
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3118
proposed as book in Ref. [311] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3119
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3120
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3121
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3122
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3123
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3124
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3125
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3126
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3127
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3128
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–197] 3129
alongside scientific research books at [198–309]. Two popular scientific research books 3130
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic 3131
science is on [310, 311]. 3132
References 3133
1. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3134
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3135
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3136
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3137
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3138
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3139
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3140
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3141
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3142
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3143
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3144
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3145
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3146
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3147
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3148
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3149
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3150
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3151
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. 3152
(https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/neutrosophic-codegree- 3153
and-neutrosophic-degree-alongside-chromatic-numbers-in-the-setting-of-some- 3154
classes-related-to-neut.pdf) 3155
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3156
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3157
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3158
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3159
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3160
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3161
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3162
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3163
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3164
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3165
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3166
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3167
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3169
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3170
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3171
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3173
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3174
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3175
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3176
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3177
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3178
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3179
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3180
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3182
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3183
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3184
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3185
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3186
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3187
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3188
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3189
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3190
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3191
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3192
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3193
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3194
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3195
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3196
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3197
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3198
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3199
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3200
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3201
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3202
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3203
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3204
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3205
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3206
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3207
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3208
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3209
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3210
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3212
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3216
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3217
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3218
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3219
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3220
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3221
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3222
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3223
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3224
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3225
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3226
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3227
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3228
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3229
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3230
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3231
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3232
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3233
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3234
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3235
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3236
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3237
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3238
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3239
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3240
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3241
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3243
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3244
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3245
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3246
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904671). 3247
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3249
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3250
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3251
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3252
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3253
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3254
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3255
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3257
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3258
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3260
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3263
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3266
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3269
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3270
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3272
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3275
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7853867). 3276
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3277
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3278
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3281
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3284
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3287
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3288
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3290
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3293
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3294
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3296
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3299
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3302
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3305
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3308
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3311
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3312
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3314
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3315
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3317
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3318
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3320
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3323
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3326
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3327
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3329
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3332
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3333
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3334
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3336
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3337
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3339
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3340
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3341
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3342
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3345
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3348
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3349
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3351
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3352
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3354
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3357
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3360
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3363
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3366
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3369
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3372
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3375
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3378
72. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3380
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3381
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3382
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3384
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3387
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3388
75. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3389
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3390
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3391
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3393
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3396
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3399
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3400
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3402
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3403
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3405
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3406
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3407
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3408
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3409
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3411
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3414
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3417
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3418
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3420
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3423
87. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3425
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3427
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3429
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3431
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3432
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3435
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3437
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3438
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3441
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3443
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3445
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3447
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3449
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3450
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3453
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3454
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3456
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3459
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3461
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3463
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3465
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3466
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3468
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3470
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3472
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3474
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3475
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3476
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3477
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3478
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3480
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3481
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3482
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3483
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3486
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3488
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3489
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3492
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3494
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3495
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3498
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3500
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3502
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3504
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3505
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3506
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3507
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3510
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3511
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3512
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3513
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3516
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3517
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3518
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3519
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3522
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3523
120. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3524
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3525
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3528
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3529
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3530
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3531
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3534
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3535
124. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3536
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3537
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3539
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3540
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3543
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3544
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3545
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3546
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3549
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3550
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3551
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3552
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3555
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3557
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3558
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3561
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3563
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3564
134. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3566
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3567
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3570
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3573
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3575
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3576
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3578
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3579
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3581
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3582
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3583
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3585
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3586
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3587
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3588
142. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3590
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3591
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3592
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3593
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3594
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3595
144. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3596
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3597
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3598
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3599
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3602
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3603
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3606
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3607
147. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3608
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3610
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3611
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3614
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3615
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3618
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3619
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3620
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3621
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3622
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3623
151. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3624
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3625
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3626
152. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3627
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3628
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3629
153. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3630
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3631
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3632
154. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3633
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3634
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3635
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3636
155. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3637
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3638
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3639
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3640
156. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3641
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3642
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3643
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3644
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3645
157. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3646
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3647
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3648
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3649
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3650
158. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3651
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3652
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3653
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3654
159. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3655
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3656
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3657
160. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3658
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3661
161. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3662
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3663
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3664
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3665
162. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3666
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3667
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3668
163. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3669
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3670
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3671
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3672
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3673
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3674
164. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3675
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3676
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3677
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3678
165. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3679
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3680
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3681
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3682
166. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3683
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3684
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3685
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3686
167. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3687
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3688
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3689
168. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3690
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3691
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3692
169. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3694
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3695
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3696
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3697
170. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3698
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3699
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3700
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3701
171. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3702
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3703
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3704
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3705
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3707
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3708
173. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3709
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3710
174. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3712
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3713
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3714
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3719
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3723
177. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3724
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3725
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3726
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3727
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3730
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3732
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3733
180. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3734
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3735
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3738
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3739
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3741
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3742
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3745
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3746
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3748
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3749
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3752
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3753
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3755
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3756
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3758
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3763
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3764
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3768
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3769
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3772
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3775
192. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3776
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3777
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3778
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3779
193. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3780
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3781
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3782
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3783
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3786
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3787
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3790
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3791
196. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3792
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3793
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3794
197. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3795
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3796
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3797
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3798
198. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3799
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 3800
199. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3801
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7905287). 3802
200. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3803
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 3804
201. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3805
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7874677). 3806
202. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3807
203. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3809
204. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3811
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 3812
205. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3813
206. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3815
207. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3817
208. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3819
209. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3821
210. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3823
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3824
211. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3825
212. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3827
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3828
213. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3829
214. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3831
215. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3833
216. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3835
217. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3837
218. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3839
219. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3841
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3842
220. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3843
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3844
221. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3845
222. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3847
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3848
223. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3849
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3850
224. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3851
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3852
225. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3853
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 3854
226. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3855
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3856
227. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3857
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3858
228. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3859
229. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3861
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3862
230. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3863
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3864
231. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3865
232. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3867
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3868
233. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3869
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3870
234. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3871
235. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3873
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3874
236. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3875
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3876
237. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3877
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3878
238. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3879
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3880
239. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3881
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 3882
240. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3883
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3884
241. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3885
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3886
242. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3887
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3888
243. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3889
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3890
244. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3891
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3892
245. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3893
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3894
246. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3895
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3896
247. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3897
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3898
248. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3899
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3900
249. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3901
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3902
250. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3903
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3904
251. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3905
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3906
252. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3907
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3908
253. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3909
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3910
254. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3911
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3912
255. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3913
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3914
256. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3915
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3916
257. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3917
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3918
258. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3919
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3920
259. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3921
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3922
260. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3923
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3924
261. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3925
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3926
262. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3927
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3928
263. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3929
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3930
264. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3931
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3932
265. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3933
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3934
266. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3935
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3936
267. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3937
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3938
268. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3939
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3940
269. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3941
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3942
270. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3943
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3944
271. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3945
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3946
272. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3947
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3948
273. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3949
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3950
274. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3951
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3952
275. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3953
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3954
276. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3955
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3956
277. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3957
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3958
278. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3959
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3960
279. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3961
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3962
280. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3963
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3964
281. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3965
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3966
282. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3967
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3968
283. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3969
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3970
284. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3971
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3972
285. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3973
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3974
286. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3975
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3976
287. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3977
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3978
288. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3979
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3980
289. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3981
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3982
290. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3983
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3984
291. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3985
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3986
292. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3987
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3988
293. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3989
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3990
294. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3991
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3992
295. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3993
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3994
296. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3995
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3996
297. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3997
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3998
298. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3999
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4000
299. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4001
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4002
300. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4003
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4004
301. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4005
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4006
302. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4007
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4008
303. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4009
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4010
304. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4011
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4012
305. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4013
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4014
306. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4015
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4016
307. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4017
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4018
308. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4019
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4020
309. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4021
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4022
310. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4023
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4024
311. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4025
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4026
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Eddy by Hyper Dome of Dominating-Edges in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super Eddy by Hyper Dome of Dominating-Edges in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of Dominating-Edges In Cancer's

Preprint · May 2023

474 PUBLICATIONS 16,977 CITATIONS

On Combinatorics View project

Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 2

Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With 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