New Ideas On Super Mat by Hyper Matte of Matrix-Based in Cancer's Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371110937
New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In Cancer's

Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · May 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
478 PUBLICATIONS 17,577 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project
Neutrosophic Graphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 28 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 mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based 2
In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3
SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperMatrix-Based). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 10
Matrix-Based 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-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 13
e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 14
The incidence matrix forms;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 15
e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 16
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 17
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18
v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 19
The adjacency matrix forms;
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 20
v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 21
and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 23
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and 24
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatrix-Based). Assume 25
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 SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 28
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 30
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 31
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 32
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 33
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based; a 34
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 35
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 37
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 38
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 39
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 40
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based; an 41
Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 42
e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic 43
v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for 44
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 45
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 46
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 47
of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 48
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based; and the 49
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 50
SuperHyperMatrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 51
v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for a 53
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 54
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 55
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 56
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 57
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 58
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based; and the Neutrosophic power is 59
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s 60
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 61
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and 62
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 63
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 64
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 65
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 66
SuperHyperMatrix-Based; a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of 67
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 68
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and 69
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 70
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 71
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 72
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 73
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based; an Extreme V-SuperHyperMatrix-Based 74
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 75
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 77
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 78
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 79
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 80
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 81
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based; and the 82
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 83
SuperHyperMatrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 84
v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for a 86
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 87
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 88
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 89
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 90
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 91
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based; and 92
the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this scientific 93
research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 94
SuperHyperMatrix-Based and Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based. Two different types of 95
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 96
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 97
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 98
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 99
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 100
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 101
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 102
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 103
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 104
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 105
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 106
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 107
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 108
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 109
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 110
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 111
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 112
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 113
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 114
δ−SuperHyperMatrix-Based is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 115
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 116
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 117
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 118
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 119
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperMatrix-Based is a 120
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 121
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 122
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 123
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 124
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 125
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 126
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 127
version of a SuperHyperMatrix-Based . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make 128
a SuperHyperMatrix-Based more understandable. For the sake of having Neutrosophic 129
SuperHyperMatrix-Based, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperMatrix-Based 130
”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 131
the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels 132
to assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperMatrix-Based . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 133
SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of 134
Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 135
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & 136
The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 137
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of 138
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 139
“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get 140
structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 141
SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperMatrix-Based . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary 142
to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s 143
a need to have all SuperHyperMatrix-Based until the SuperHyperMatrix-Based, then it’s 144
officially called a “SuperHyperMatrix-Based” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperMatrix-Based . 145
There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a 146
“SuperHyperMatrix-Based ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 147
there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 148
SuperHyperMatrix-Based . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 149
there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based” and a 150
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 151
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 152
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 153
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 154
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperMatrix-Based are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 155
SuperHyperMatrix-Based” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” 156
version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results 157
to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based more understandable. Assume a 158
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if 159
the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 160
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 161
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 162
SuperHyperMatrix-Based”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 163
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 164
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 165
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based” where it’s the strongest [the maximum 166
Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperMatrix-Based amid the maximum value amid 167
all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperMatrix-Based .] SuperHyperMatrix-Based . A graph 168
is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 169
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 170
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 171
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 172
SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 173
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 174
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 175
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 176
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 177
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 178
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 179
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 180
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 181
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 182
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 183
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 184
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 185
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 186
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 187
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 188
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 189
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 190
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 191
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 192
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 193
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 194
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 195
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 196
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 197
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 198
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 199
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 200
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 201
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 202
The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperMatrix-Based or the strongest 203
SuperHyperMatrix-Based in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 204
SuperHyperMatrix-Based, called SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and the strongest 205
SuperHyperMatrix-Based, called Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based, some general results 206
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have 207
only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 208
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperMatrix-Based. There isn’t any 209
formation of any SuperHyperMatrix-Based but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 210
SuperHyperMatrix-Based. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity 211
with Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic 212
SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 213
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Cancer’s 214
Neutrosophic Recognition 215
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 216
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 217
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 218
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 219
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 220
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 221
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 222
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 223
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 224
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 225
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 226
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 227
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 228
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 229
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 230
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 231
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 232
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 233
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 234
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 235
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 236
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 237
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 238
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 239
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 240
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 241
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 242
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 243
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 244
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 245
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 246
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 247
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 248
formally called “ SuperHyperMatrix-Based” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 249
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 250
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 251
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 252
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 253
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 254
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 255
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 256
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 257
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 258
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 259
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 260
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperMatrix-Based, SuperHyperStar, 261
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 262
either the optimal SuperHyperMatrix-Based or the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based in those 263
Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 264
SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two 265
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 266
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperMatrix-Based. There isn’t any 267
formation of any SuperHyperMatrix-Based but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 268
SuperHyperMatrix-Based. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 269
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 270
find the “ amount of SuperHyperMatrix-Based” of either individual of cells or the groups of 271
cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 272
SuperHyperMatrix-Based” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of 273
cells? 274
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 275
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 276
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 277
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 278
SuperHyperMatrix-Based” and “Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based” on “SuperHyperGraph” 279
and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations to 280
define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion 281
with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to 282
make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some 283
results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, 284
“Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 285
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 286
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 287
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 288
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 289
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 290
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 291
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperMatrix-Based and 292
Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperMatrix-Based” and 293
“Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in 294
Matrix-Based to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform 295
and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, 296
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, 297
titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. 298
As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common 299
notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 300
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 301
Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 302
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 303
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 304
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 305
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperMatrix-Based”, “Extreme 306
SuperHyperMatrix-Based”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 307
SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s done about the 308
SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and going to figure 309
out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as presented in 310
section, “ SuperHyperMatrix-Based”. The keyword of this research debut in the section 311
“Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The 312
Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The 313
Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, 314
“Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 315
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to 316
figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 317
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense 318
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 319
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 320
Research On the Redeemed Ways 321
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 322
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [199],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic 323
Set](Ref. [199],Definition 2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 324
(NSHG)](Ref. [199],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characterization of the Neutrosophic 325
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [199],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [199], 326
Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 327
(NSHG)](Ref. [199],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic 328
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [199],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of 329
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref. [199],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new 330
ideas and their clarifications are addressed to Ref. [199]. 331
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 332
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 333
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [199],Definition 2.1,p.1). 334
Let X be a Matrix-Based 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 335
+
]− 0, 1 [. 336
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [199],Definition 2.2,p.2). 337
Let X be a Matrix-Based 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. [199],Definition 338
2.5,p.2). 339
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 340
pair S = (V, E), where 341
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 342
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 343
1, 2, . . . , n); 344
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 345
V; 346
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 347
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 348
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 349
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 350
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 351
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 352
(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 . 353
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 354
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 355
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 356
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 357
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 358
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 359
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 360
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 361
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 362
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 363
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 364
(Ref. [199],Definition 2.7,p.3). 365
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 366
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 367
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 368
characterized as follow-up items. 369
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 370
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 371
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 372
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 373
HyperEdge; 374
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 375
SuperEdge; 376
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 377
SuperHyperEdge. 378
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 379
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 380
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [199], Definition 2.7, p.3). 381
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 382
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 383
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 384
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 385
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 386
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 387
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)). 388
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 389
pair S = (V, E), where 390
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 391
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 392
1, 2, . . . , n); 393
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 394
V; 395
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 396
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 397
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 398
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 399
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 400
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 401
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 402
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 403
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 404
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 405
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 406
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 407
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 408
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 409
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 410
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 411
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 412
(Ref. [199],Definition 2.7,p.3). 413
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 414
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 415
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 416
characterized as follow-up items. 417
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 418
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 419
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 420
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 421
HyperEdge; 422
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 423
SuperEdge; 424
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 425
SuperHyperEdge. 426
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 427
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 428
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 429
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 430
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 431
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 432
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 433
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 434
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 435
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 436
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 437
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 438
given SuperHyperEdges; 439
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 440
SuperHyperEdges; 441
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 442
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 443
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 444
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 445
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 446
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 447
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 448
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 449
common SuperVertex. 450
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 451
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 452
of following conditions hold: 453
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 454
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 455
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 456
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 457
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 458
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 459
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 460
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 461
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 462
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 463
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 464
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. 465
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 466
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 467
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 468
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 469
SuperHyperPath . 470
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 471
(Ref. [199],Definition 5.3,p.7). 472
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 473
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 474
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 475
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 476
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 477
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 478
(NSHE)). (Ref. [199],Definition 5.4,p.7). 479
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 480
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 481
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 482
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 483
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 484
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 485
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 486
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 488
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 489
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 491
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 492
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 493
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 494
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 495
SuperHyperMatrix-Based). 496
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 498
either V 0 or E 0 is called 499
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called 500
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 501
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called 502
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 503
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 504
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called 505
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 506
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called 507
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 508

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 509
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic 510
v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 512
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatrix-Based). 513
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 515
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic 516
v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and 518
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 519
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 520
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 521
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 522
Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 523
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic 524
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 528
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 531
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 532
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 533
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based 534
and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 535
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 536
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 537
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 538
Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 540
Extreme coefficient; 541
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 542
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic 543
re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic 544
rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 545
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 546
Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 547
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 548
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded 551
to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 552
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic 553
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 556
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 557
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 558
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 559
the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 560
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic 561
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 565
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 566
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 567
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 568
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperMatrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 569
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 570
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based 571
and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 572
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 574
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 575
Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 577
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 579
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic 580
re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic 581
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
rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 582
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 583
Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 584
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 585
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 586
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 587
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based; and the Neutrosophic power is 588
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 589
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperMatrix-Based). 590
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 591
(i) an δ−SuperHyperMatrix-Based is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 592
SuperHyperMatrix-Based such that either of the following expressions hold for the 593
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 594
|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 595
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 596
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperMatrix-Based is a Neutrosophic kind of 597
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based such that either of the following Neutrosophic 598
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 599
s∈S: 600
|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. 601
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 602
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 603
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based, there’s a need to 604
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 605
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 606
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 607
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 608
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 609
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 610
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 611
understandable. 612

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 613
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 614
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperMatrix-Based, SuperHyperStar, 615
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 616
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 617
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 618
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic 619
SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 620
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic 621
SuperHyperMatrix-Based. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a 622
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based more Neutrosophicly understandable. 623
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based, there’s a need to 624
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based”. The 625
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 626
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 627
assign to the values. 628
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperMatrix-Based. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 629
SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the Table (3) holds. 630
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The Matrix-Based 631
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 632
Forms 633
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 634
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 635
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is called 636
Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called Extreme 637
event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 638
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 639
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called Extreme 641
s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme s-independent 642
criteria 643
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. 644
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 645
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 646
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Any k-function Matrix-Based like E is called 648
Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Matrix-Based like E is called 649
Extreme Variable. 650
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 651
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 652
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is called 654
Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme Expectation 655
criteria 656
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 657
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. an Extreme number is called Extreme 659
Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 660
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). 661
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let m and n propose special Matrix-Based. 662
Then with m ≥ 4n, 663
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 664
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 665
independently with probability Matrix-Based p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 666
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: 667
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
668
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 669
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points in 670
the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the plane passing 671
through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 672
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 673
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points on the 674
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 675
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 676
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 677
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 678
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 679
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points in 681
the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit SuperHyperDistance. 682
Then k < 5n4/3 . 683
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 684
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Draw a SuperHyperUnit SuperHyperCircle 685
around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number P of these 686
SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0n−1 ni = n and 687

1
P n−1
k=2 i=0 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with 688
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 689
between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at 690
least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 691
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 692
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 693
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 694
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 695
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 696
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 697
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 698
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 699
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let X be a nonnegative 700
Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 701
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. 702
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 703
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let Xn be a nonnegative 704
integer-valued variable in a probability Matrix-Based (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as 705
n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 706
Proof. 707
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 708
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. A special SuperHyperGraph 709
in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 710
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. Let 712
G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, where 713
k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this 714
being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S 715
is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 716
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 717
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 718
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 719
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 720
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: 721
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 722
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 723
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 724
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 725
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 726
number at most k. 727
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 728
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is called 730
Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme Variance criteria 731
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let X be an Extreme 733
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 734
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let t be a 736
positive real number. Then 737
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
738
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let Xn be an Extreme 740
Variable in a probability Matrix-Based (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 741
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 742
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s 744
Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because 745
|Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 746
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set 748
f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 749
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 750
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. As in the proof of related Theorem, the result is 752
straightforward. 753
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f and 755
k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 756
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 757
or 758
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 759
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. The latter is straightforward. 761
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 762
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let P be a monotone property of 764
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 765
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 766
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 767
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 768
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 769
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let F be a fixed Extreme SuperHyperGraph. 771
Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a copy of F as an 772
Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 773
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. Let F be a nonempty 775
balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 776
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 777
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 778
S = (V, E) is a probability Matrix-Based. The latter is straightforward. 780
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 781
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 782
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 783
SuperHyperMatrix-Based, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 784
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 785
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 786
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 787
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 788
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 789
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 790
Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 791
C(N SHG)Extreme Matrix-Based =

 
0 1 0 1
0 0 0 1
 
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1
C(N SHG)Extreme Matrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial
= 2z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Matrix-Based =
 
0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1
 
0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Matrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial
= z3.
792
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 795
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 796
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 797
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 798
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 799
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based in the Extreme Example (16.3)
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 800

 
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
 
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1
= 3z.
 
0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1
 
0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0
= z3.
801


 
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
= 3z.
 
0 1 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
= z3.
805


 
0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 1 1
 
1 0 0 1 1
 
1 1 0 0 0
 
0 0 1 1 1
 
1 1 0 0 0
 
0 0 0 1 1
0 2 0 0 0
= z3 + z2.
 
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
 
1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
 
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
 
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
 
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
 
1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
= 2z 5 + 2z 3 .
809


 
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
 
0 0 1 0
 
0 0 0 1
1 1 1 1
= z4.
 
0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1
 
0 0 0 0 1
 
0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1
= z.
813


 
0 ... 1 ... 1 ... 0
 0 ... 1 ... 1 ... 0
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 ... 1 ... 1 ... 0
= za.
 
0 ... 1 ... 1 ... 1 ... 0
 0 ... 1 ... 1 ... 1 ... 0
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 ... 1 ... 1 ... 1 ... 0
= zb.
817


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
821


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
825


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
829


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
833


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
837


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
841


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
845


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
849



 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
853


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
857


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
861


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
865


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
869


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
873


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
877


 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
881
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 882
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based if 883
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 884
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 885
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 886
them. 887
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 888
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 889
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 890
any given Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 891
them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 892
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 893
an Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them 894
but not all of them. 895
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-Matrix-Based is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Matrix-Based is at least the 896
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 897
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 898
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 899
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Matrix-Based in 900
some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the 901
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 902
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Matrix-Based. 903
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Matrix-Based 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-Matrix-Based with the least Extreme cardinality, the lower 904
sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 905
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 906
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 907
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−M atrix−Based

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−M atrix−BasedSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−M atrix−Based = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−M atrix−BasedSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Matrix-Based. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp 908
bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Matrix-Based is the cardinality of 909

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−M atrix−BasedSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−M atrix−Based = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−M atrix−BasedSuperHyperP 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-Matrix-Based 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-Matrix-Based. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for
the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Matrix-Based 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-Matrix-Based. 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 910
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 911
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 912
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 913
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 914
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 915
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 916
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 917
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Matrix-Based 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-Matrix-Based. 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-Matrix-Based has the
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an Extreme R-Matrix-Based
has the Extreme cardinality at least an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Assume an Extreme
SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This Extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t an Extreme R-Matrix-Based
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-Matrix-Based” 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-Matrix-Based 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-Matrix-Based for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used Extreme 918
background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common theme of the 919
lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 920
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 921
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-Matrix-Based.
Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an Extreme
style-R-Matrix-Based. 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-Matrix-Based is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Extreme R-Matrix-Based but with
slightly differences in the maximum Extreme cardinality amid those Extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the Extreme
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Extreme cardinality ,

z
and
E
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Extreme R-Matrix-Based. Let Zi ∼ Zj ,
be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the Extreme
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 922
Extreme R-Matrix-Based =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
923
Extreme R-Matrix-Based =
Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is an Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based where E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is

fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended SuperHyperVertices
but in an Extreme Matrix-Based, 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-Matrix-Based is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Matrix-Based is at least 924
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 925
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 926
other words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 927
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 928
Matrix-Based in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge 929
with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 930
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Matrix-Based. 931
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 932
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 933
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 934
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 935
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 936
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 937
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 938
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 939
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 940
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 941
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based where the 942
Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an 943
Extreme embedded R-Matrix-Based. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet 944
and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 945
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 946
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 947
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less 948
than two distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum 949
Extreme style of the embedded Extreme R-Matrix-Based. The interior types of the Extreme 950
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors 951
are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common 952
connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the 953
Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the 954
Extreme R-Matrix-Based. Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in 955
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior 956
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded 957
Extreme Matrix-Based, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since 958
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 959
relevant than the title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, 960
inside. Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 961
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 962
implying the Extreme R-Matrix-Based. The Extreme R-Matrix-Based with the exclusion of the 963
exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with 964
other terms, the Extreme R-Matrix-Based with the inclusion of all Extreme 965
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based. 966
To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 967
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 968
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 969
any given Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 970
them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 971
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices 972
in an Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 973
them but not all of them. 974
The main definition of the Extreme R-Matrix-Based has two titles. an Extreme 975
quasi-R-Matrix-Based and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 976
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 977
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based with that quasi-maximum Extreme 978
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If 979
there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the Extreme 980
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 981
quasi-R-Matrix-Baseds for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme corresponded 982
maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Matrix-Based ends up but this essence 983
starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based, again and more in the 984
operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Baseds acted on the all possible 985
used formations of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. 986
This Extreme number is 987
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Matrix-Baseds. Let 988
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Matrix-Based be an Extreme number, 989
an Extreme SuperHyperSet and an Extreme Matrix-Based. Then 990
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Matrix-Based ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Matrix-Based is re-formalized and 991
redefined as follows. 992
GExtreme Matrix-Based ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 993
technical definition for the Extreme Matrix-Based. 994
GExtreme Matrix-Based =
{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 995
Matrix-Based poses the upcoming expressions. 996
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 997
= maxzExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 998

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 999
GExtreme Matrix-Based ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1000
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1001
= max zExtreme Number

1002

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1003
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1004
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1005
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1006
Quasi-Matrix-Based” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme Quasi-Matrix-Based” 1007
since “Extreme Quasi-Matrix-Based” happens “Extreme Matrix-Based” in an Extreme 1008
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “Extreme 1009
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme Matrix-Based” in an Extreme 1010
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since there are 1011
some ambiguities about the Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get 1012
orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme 1013
Quasi-Matrix-Based”, and “Extreme Matrix-Based” are up. 1014
Thus, let 1015
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1016
GExtreme Matrix-Based be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood 1017
and an Extreme Matrix-Based and the new terms are up. 1018
GExtreme Matrix-Based ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1019
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1020
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1021
And with go back to initial structure, 1022
GExtreme Matrix-Based ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1023
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |

1024
= max zExtreme Number

1025

Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1026
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based if for any of 1027
them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme 1028
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme 1029
exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1030
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1031
are coming up. 1032
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Matrix-Based.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,

Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Matrix-Based. The Extreme

SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Matrix-Based C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1033
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1034
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1035
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1036
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1037
Extreme Matrix-Based 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 Matrix-Based is up. The obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Matrix-Based 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-Matrix-Based is up. To
sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Matrix-Based.

Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Matrix-Based C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1038
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1039
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1040
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Matrix-Based 1041
and it’s an Extreme Matrix-Based. Since it’s 1042
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 Matrix-Based. There isn’t only less than two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Matrix-Based,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme ,

Matrix-Based
not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1043
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1044
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1045
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1046
“Extreme R-Matrix-Based” 1047
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1048
Extreme R-Matrix-Based, 1049
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-Matrix-Based amid those obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Matrix-Based, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1050
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Matrix-Based. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound
for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Matrix-Based is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1051
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Matrix-Based if for 1052
any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1053
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1054
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1055
them. 1056
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1057
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1058
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1059
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1060
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1061
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Matrix-Based with the least 1062
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1063
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1064
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1065
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1066
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Matrix-Based. Since 1067
it doesn’t have 1068
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1070
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1071
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1072
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme R-Matrix-Based. 1073
Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that there’s an Extreme 1074
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least 1075
one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected 1076
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1077
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme 1078
SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one 1079
Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1080
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 1081
Extreme R-Matrix-Based, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet 1082
of the Extreme R-Matrix-Based, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes 1083
only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1084
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1085
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1086
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1087
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1088
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1089
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Matrix-Based only 1090
contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1091
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1092
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1093
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1094
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1095
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1096
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Matrix-Based, is up. There’s neither empty 1097
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1098
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1099
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Matrix-Based. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1100
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1101

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−M atrix−BasedSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−M atrix−Based = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−M atrix−BasedSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Matrix-Based. The Extreme 1102
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1103

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Matrix-Based C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1104
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1105
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme 1106
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1107
of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for 1108
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1109
inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme Matrix-Based 1110
is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Matrix-Based is 1111
an Extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the 1112
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1113

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 1114
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1115
Extreme Matrix-Based is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1116
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1117

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 Matrix-Based. Since 1118
the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1119

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Matrix-Based C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 1120
is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 1121
an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that 1122
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Matrix-Based and it’s an Extreme 1123
Matrix-Based. Since it’s 1124
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1126
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1127
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1128
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1129

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Matrix-Based , 1130

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:

Matrix-Based 1131

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1132

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 1133
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1134
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1135
“Extreme Matrix-Based” 1136
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1137
Extreme Matrix-Based , 1138
is only and only 1139

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1140
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1141
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1142
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1143
SuperHyperClasses. 1144
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1145

 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
Proof. Let 1146
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperMatrix-Based in the Example (16.5)
1147
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 SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1148
There’s a new way to redefine as 1149
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 1150
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperMatrix-Based. The latter is 1151
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1153
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1154
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1155
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1156
Then 1157

 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
Proof. Let 1158
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1159
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). 1160

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1165
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1166
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1167
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperMatrix-Based in the Extreme Example (16.7)
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1168

 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
Proof. Let 1169
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1170
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1171
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperMatrix-Based in the Extreme Example (16.9)
a new way to redefine as 1172

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1176
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1177
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1178
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1179
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1180
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1181
Then 1182

 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
Proof. Let 1183
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
1184
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). 1185

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperMatrix-Based. Thus the notion of 1189
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperMatrix-Based could be 1190
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 1191
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1192
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based in the Example (16.11)
is a longest SuperHyperMatrix-Based taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1193
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1194
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1195
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1196
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1197
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1198
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1199
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1200
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1201
Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1202
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1203
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1204

 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
Proof. Let 1205
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
1206
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 SuperHyperMatrix-Based taken from a connected Extreme 1207
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1208

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperMatrix-Based. Thus the notion of 1211
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperMatrix-Based could be 1212
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 1213
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperMatrix-Based in the Example (16.13)
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1215
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1216
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1219
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1220
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1221
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1222
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 1223
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1224
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1225
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1226

 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= za.
 
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . .
− ... − ... − ... − ... −
= zb.
Proof. Let 1227
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1228
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
is a longest SuperHyperMatrix-Based taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1229
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1230

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperMatrix-Based. Thus the notion of 1233
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperMatrix-Based could be 1234
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperMatrix-Based proposes some longest 1235
SuperHyperMatrix-Based excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1236
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1238
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1239
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1240
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1241
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1242
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based in the Extreme Example (16.15)
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1243
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1244
For the SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and the Extreme 1245
SuperHyperMatrix-Based, some general results are introduced. 1246
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based is “redefined” on the 1247
positions of the alphabets. 1248
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based. Then 1249
Extreme SuperHyperM atrix − Based =

{theSuperHyperM atrix − Basedof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperM atrix − Based
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperM atrix−Based. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1250
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1251
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1252
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1253
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based and SuperHyperMatrix-Based 1254
coincide. 1255
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1257
SuperHyperMatrix-Based if and only if it’s a SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1258
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1260
SuperHyperMatrix-Based if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1261
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1262
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based is its 1263
SuperHyperMatrix-Based and reversely. 1264
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 1265
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1266
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based is its 1267
SuperHyperMatrix-Based and reversely. 1268
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1269
SuperHyperMatrix-Based isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperMatrix-Based isn’t 1270
well-defined. 1271
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1272
Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperMatrix-Based isn’t 1273
well-defined. 1274
Then its Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1277
SuperHyperMatrix-Based isn’t well-defined. 1278
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1279
SuperHyperMatrix-Based is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperMatrix-Based is well-defined. 1280
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1281
its Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperMatrix-Based is 1282
well-defined. 1283
Then its Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based is well-defined if and only if its 1286
SuperHyperMatrix-Based is well-defined. 1287
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1288
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1289
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1290
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1291
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1292
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1293
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1294
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1295
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1296
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1297
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1298
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1299
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1300
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1301
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1302
independent SuperHyperSet is 1303
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1304
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1305
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1306
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1307
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1308
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1309
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1310
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperMatrix-Based/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1311
maximal 1312
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1313
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1314
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1315
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1316
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1317
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1318
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1319
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1320
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1321
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1322
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1323
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1324
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1325
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1326
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1327
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1328
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperMatrix-Based/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 1330
(i) : the SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1331
(ii) : the SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1332
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1333
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1334
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1335
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1336
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1337
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1338
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1340
(i) : the dual SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1341
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1342
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1343
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1344
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1345
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1346
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1347
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1350
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1351
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1352
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1353
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1357
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1358
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1359
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1362
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1363
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1364
is a 1365
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1369
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1370
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1371
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1374
number of 1375
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1379
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1380
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1381
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1382
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1383
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1384
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1386
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1387
(iv) : SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1391
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1392
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1393
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1394
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1395
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1396
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1397
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1398
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1402
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1404
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1405
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1406
setting of dual 1407
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1411
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1412
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1413
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1415
SuperHyperMatrix-Based/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1417
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1418
dual 1419
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1423
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1424
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1425
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1427
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1428
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1429
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1435
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1436
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1437
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1438
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1439
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1440
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1441
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1442
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1443
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1444
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based, then 1445
(i) S is SuperHyperMatrix-Based set; 1446
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1447
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1448
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1449
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1450
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1451
connected. Then 1452
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1453
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1454
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1455
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1456
SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1457
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1458
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1459
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1460
a dual SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1461
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1462
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1463
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1464
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1465
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1466
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1467
dual SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1468
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperMatrix-Based. Then 1469
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1470
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1472
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1473
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1474
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1475
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperMatrix-Based. Then 1477
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1478
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1480
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1481
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1482
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1484
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1485
(ii) Γ = 1; 1486
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1487
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1488
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1489
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1490
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1491
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1492
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1493
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1494
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1495
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1496
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1497
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1499
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1500
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1501
SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1502
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1503
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1504
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1506

bnc ; 1507
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1508
SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1509
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1510
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1511
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1512
SuperHyperMatrix-Based for N SHF; 1513
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1514
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1515
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1516
SuperHyperMatrix-Based for N SHF : (V, E). 1517
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1518
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1519
SuperHyperSet. Then 1520
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1521
SuperHyperMatrix-Based for N SHF; 1522
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1523

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1524
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperMatrix-Based 1525
for N SHF : (V, E). 1526
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1527
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1528
SuperHyperSet. Then 1529
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1530
SuperHyperMatrix-Based for N SHF : (V, E); 1531
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1532

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1533
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperMatrix-Based for 1534
N SHF : (V, E). 1535
following statements hold; 1537
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1538
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 1539
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1541
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based, then S is a dual 1542
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1543
following statements hold; 1545
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1546
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 1547
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1549
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based, then S is a dual 1550
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1551
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1552
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1553
hold; 1554
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1555
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1556
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1557
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1559
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1561
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1562
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1563
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1564
hold; 1565
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1566
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c

+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1568
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1570
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1572
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1573
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1575
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1576
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1577
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1579
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1581
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1584
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1586
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1587
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1588
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1590
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1592
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based; 1593
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1595
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1597
Then following statements hold; 1598
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1599
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1601
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1603
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1606
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1608
Then following statements hold; 1609
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1610
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1612
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1614
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1617
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1618
Recognition 1619
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1620
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1621
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1622
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1623
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1624
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1625
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1626
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1627
long-term Extreme function. 1628
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1629
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1630
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1631
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1632
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1633
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1634
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1635
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1636
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1637
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1638
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1639
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperMatrix-Based, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 1640
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 1641
Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based or the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based in those 1642
Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1643
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1644
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1645
SuperHyperModel 1646
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1647
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1648
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1649
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1650
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1651
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1652
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1653
the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1654
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1655
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1656
SuperHyperModel 1657
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1658
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1659
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperMatrix-Based
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 1660
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1661
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1662
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1664
is the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based. 1665
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1666
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1667
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1668
The SuperHyperMatrix-Based and the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based are defined on a 1669
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1670
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1671
recognitions? 1672
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperMatrix-Based and 1673
the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based? 1674
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1675
compute them? 1676
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1677
SuperHyperMatrix-Based and the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based? 1678
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperMatrix-Based and the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based do a 1679
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 1680
are there else? 1681
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1682
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1683
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1684
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1685
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1686
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1687
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1688
highlighted. 1689
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1690
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1691
SuperHyperMatrix-Based. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 1692
Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the 1693
new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, Extreme 1694
SuperHyperMatrix-Based, finds the convenient background to implement some results based 1695
on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases 1696
of this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer 1697
to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1698
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperMatrix-Based, the new 1699
SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are 1700
gathered in the section on the SuperHyperMatrix-Based and the Extreme 1701
SuperHyperMatrix-Based. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken 1702
the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines 1703
containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 1704
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both 1705
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on 1706
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 1707
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the 1708
moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design 1709
and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperMatrix-Based” in the themes of 1710
jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded 1711
styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6),
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperMatrix-Based
3. Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1712
benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1713
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1714
Forms 1716
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1717
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1718
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1719
V 0 or E 0 is called 1720
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E such 1721
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1722
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1723
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1724
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1725
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1726
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1727
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1728
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1729
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1730
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1731
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1732
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1734
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1735
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1736
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1737
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1738
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1739
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1740
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1742
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1743
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1744
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1745
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1746
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1747
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1748
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1749
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1750
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1751
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1753
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1758
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1760
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1770
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1775
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1777
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1778
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1782
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1784
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1785
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1786
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1795
Extreme coefficient. 1804
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1808
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1809
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1810
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1811
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1812
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1814
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 1817
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1818
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1819
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1820
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1821
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1822


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). 1865
Then 1866
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 1867
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 1871
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1875
Then 1877
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 1878
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1886
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1887
Then 1888
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 1889
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1899
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1900
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1901
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 1902
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 1907
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1908
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1909
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1910
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1911
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1920

= {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 1923
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1924

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1930
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. 1941
Proposition 12.14. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1942
Then, 1943
∗ ∗
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 1944
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 1945

∃!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 1951
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1952
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 1954
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1955
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1957
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 1958
Forms 1960
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 1961
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1965
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 1966
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1967
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1968
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1969
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1970
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 1971
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1972
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 1973
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1974
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 1975
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 1976
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 1977
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 1980
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 1981
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1982
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1983
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 1984
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1985
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 1986
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 1987
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1989
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 1993
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1994
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 1995
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 1996
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2002
coefficient; 2003
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2004
coefficient; 2013
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2014
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2018
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2019
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2020
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2021
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2025
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2027
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2028
coefficient; 2037
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2038
coefficient. 2047
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2051
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2052
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2057
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. 2059
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2065


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 2109
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 2110
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2114
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2118
Then 2120

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

.
Proof. Let 2121
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2129
Then 2131
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 2132

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2142
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 2145
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 2150
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2151
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2152
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2154
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2163

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 2166
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2167
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2168

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2171
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2172
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2173
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. 2184
Then, 2186

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

.
Proof. Let 2187
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2188

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2192
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2193
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2194
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2195
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2200
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2201
Forms 2203
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2204
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2208
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2209
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2210
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2211
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2212
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2213
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2214
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2215
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2216
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2217
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2218
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2219
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2222
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2224
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2228
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2229
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2231
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2235
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2236
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2237
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2238
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2244
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2246
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2256
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2257
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2261
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2263
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2264
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2265
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2268
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2270
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2271
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2272
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2281
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2294
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2300
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. 2308


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 2352
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 2353
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2357
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2361
Then 2363
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 2364
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2372
Then 2374
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2375

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2385
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 2388
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 2393
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2394
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2397
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2406

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 2409
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2410

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2414
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2415
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. 2427
Then, 2429
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2430
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2431

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2435
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2436
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2437
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2438
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2443
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2444
Forms 2446
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2447
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2451
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2452
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2453
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2454
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2455
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2456
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2457
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2458
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2459
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2460
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2461
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2462
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2465
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2467
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2471
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2472
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2474
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2478
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2479
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2480
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2481
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2487
coefficient; 2488
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2489
coefficient; 2498
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2499
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2503
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2504
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2505
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2506
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2510
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2512
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2513
coefficient; 2522
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2523
coefficient. 2532
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2536
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2542
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. 2550


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 2594
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 2595
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2599
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2603
Then 2605
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 2606
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. 2614
Then 2616
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 2617
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2627
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 2630
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2635
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2636
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2639
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2648

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 2651
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2652
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2653

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2656
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2657
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. 2669
Then, 2671
∗
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 2672
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2673

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2677
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2678
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2679
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2680
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2685
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2686
Forms 2688
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2689
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2693
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2694
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2695
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2696
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2697
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2698
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2699
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2700
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2701
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2702
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2703
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2704
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2705
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2706
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2709
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2711
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2712
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2713
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2714
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2716
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2717
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2720
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2721
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2722
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2723
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2724
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2725
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2727
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2732
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2734
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2735
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2744
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2748
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2749
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2751
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2752
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2756
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2757
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2758
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2759
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2760
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2761
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2762
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2769
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2770
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2782
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2783
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2784
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2785
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2786
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2787
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2788
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2789
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 2792
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2793
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2794
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2795
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2797


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 2861
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 2862
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 2866
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2870
Then 2872
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 2873
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 2876
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2881
Then 2883
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 2884
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2894
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 2897
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2902
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2903
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2906
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2907
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2915
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 2918
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2919

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2923
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2924
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. 2936
Then, 2938
∗
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 2939
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2940

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2944
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2945
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2946
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2947
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2953
17 Background 2954
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2955
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 2956
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 2957
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 2958
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett 2959
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2960
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 2961
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 2962
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 2963
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 2964
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 2965
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 2966
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 2967
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2968
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 2969
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 2970
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 2971
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2972
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 2973
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 2974
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 2975
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 2976
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 2977
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2978
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2979
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 2980
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 2981
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 2982
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 2983
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 2984
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 2985
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 2986
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 2987
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 2988
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 2989
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 2990
SuperHyperNumbers. 2991
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 2992
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 2993
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research 2994
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 2995
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 2996
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 2997
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 2998
ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 2999
16-24. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs 3000
instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3001
results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing 3002
Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside 3003
(Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 3004
(2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [6] by 3005
Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3006
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3007
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3008
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3009
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3010
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3011
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3012
in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3013
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3014
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3015
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3016
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3017
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3018
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3019
in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3020
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3021
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3022
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3023
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3024
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3025
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3026
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3027
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [15] by Henry 3028
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3029
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3030
Beyond ” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3031
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3032
in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3033
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3034
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3035
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3036
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett 3037
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3038
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3039
in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3040
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3041
Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3042
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3043
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3044
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3045
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3046
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3047
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3048
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3049
Treatments” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3050
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3051
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett 3052
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3053
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [169] by Henry 3054
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3055
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3056
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [170] by Henry Garrett 3057
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3058
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3059
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [171] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3060
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3061
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3062
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [172] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3063
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3064
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [175] by 3065
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3066
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3067
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [176] by Henry 3068
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3069
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3070
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [179] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3071
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3072
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [182] by Henry 3073
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3074
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3075
in Ref. [183] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3076
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3077
Ref. [184] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3078
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3079
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [185] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3080
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3081
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [186] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3082
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3083
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [187] by Henry Garrett 3084
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3085
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [198] by Henry 3086
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3087
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3088
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [199] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–199], there 3089
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3090
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3091
at [200–313]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3092
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [314, 315]. 3093
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3094
proposed as book in Ref. [314] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3095
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3096
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3097
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3098
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3099
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3100
proposed as book in Ref. [315] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3101
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3102
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3103
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3104
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3105
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3106
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3107
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3108
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3109
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3110
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–199] 3111
alongside scientific research books at [200–313]. Two popular scientific research books 3112
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic 3113
science is on [314, 315]. 3114
References 3115
1. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3116
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3117
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3118
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3119
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3120
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3121
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3122
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3123
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3124
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3125
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3126
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3127
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3128
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3129
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3130
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3131
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3132
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3133
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. 3134
(https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/neutrosophic-codegree- 3135
and-neutrosophic-degree-alongside-chromatic-numbers-in-the-setting-of-some- 3136
classes-related-to-neut.pdf) 3137
5. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3138
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3139
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3140
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3141
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3142
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3143
6. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3144
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3145
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3146
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3147
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3148
7. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3149
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3151
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3152
8. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3153
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3154
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3155
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3156
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3157
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3158
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3159
10. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3160
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3161
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3162
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3164
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3165
11. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3166
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3167
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3168
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3169
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3170
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3172
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3173
13. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3174
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3175
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3176
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3177
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3178
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3179
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3180
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3182
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3183
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3184
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3185
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3186
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3187
17. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3188
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3189
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3190
18. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3191
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3192
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3194
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3198
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3199
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3200
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3201
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3202
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3203
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3204
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3205
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3206
22. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3207
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3208
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3209
23. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3210
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3211
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3212
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3213
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3214
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3215
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3216
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3217
25. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3218
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3219
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7940830). 3220
26. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3221
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3222
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943578). 3223
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3225
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3226
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3227
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3228
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3229
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3231
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3232
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3233
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3234
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3237
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3238
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3239
32. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3240
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3241
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3242
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3243
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3245
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3246
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3248
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3251
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3254
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3257
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3258
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3260
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3263
40. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3265
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3266
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3269
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3272
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3275
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3276
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3278
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3281
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3282
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3284
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3287
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3290
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3293
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3296
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3299
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3300
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3302
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3303
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3305
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3306
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3308
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3311
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3314
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3315
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3317
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3320
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3321
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3322
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3324
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3325
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3327
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3328
61. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3329
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3330
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3333
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3336
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3337
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3339
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3340
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3342
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3345
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3348
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3351
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3354
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3357
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3360
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3363
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3366
74. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3368
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3369
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3370
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3372
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3375
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3376
77. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3377
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3378
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3379
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3381
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3384
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3387
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3388
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3390
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3391
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3393
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3394
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3395
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3396
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3397
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3399
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3402
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3405
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3406
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3408
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3411
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3413
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3415
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3417
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3419
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3420
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3423
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3425
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3426
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3429
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3431
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3433
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3435
97. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3437
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3438
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3441
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3442
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3444
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3447
101. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3449
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3451
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3453
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3454
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3456
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3458
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3460
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3462
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3463
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3464
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3465
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3466
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3468
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3469
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3470
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3471
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3474
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3476
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3477
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3480
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3482
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3483
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3486
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3488
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3490
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3492
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3493
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3494
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3495
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3498
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3499
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3500
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3501
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3504
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3505
120. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3506
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3507
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3510
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3511
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3512
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3513
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3516
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3517
124. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3518
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3519
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3522
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3523
126. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3524
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3525
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3527
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3528
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3531
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3532
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3533
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3534
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3537
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3538
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3539
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3540
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3543
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3545
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3546
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3549
135. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3551
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3552
136. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3554
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3555
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3558
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3561
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3563
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3564
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3566
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3567
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3569
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3570
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3571
142. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3572
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3573
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3574
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3575
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3576
144. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3578
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3579
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3580
145. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3581
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3582
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3583
146. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3585
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3586
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3587
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3590
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3591
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3594
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3595
149. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3596
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3598
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3599
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3602
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3603
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3606
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3607
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3608
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3609
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3610
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3611
153. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3612
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3613
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3614
154. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3615
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3616
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3617
155. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3618
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3619
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3620
156. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3621
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3622
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3623
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3624
157. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3625
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3626
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3627
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3628
158. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3629
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3630
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3631
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3632
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3633
159. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3634
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3635
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3636
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3637
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3638
160. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3639
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3640
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3641
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3642
161. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3643
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3644
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3645
162. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3646
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3649
163. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3650
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3651
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3652
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3653
164. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3654
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3655
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3656
165. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3657
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3658
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3659
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3660
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3661
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3662
166. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3663
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3664
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3665
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3666
167. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3667
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3668
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3669
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3670
168. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3671
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3672
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3673
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3674
169. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3675
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3676
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3677
170. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3678
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3679
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3680
171. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3682
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3683
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3684
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3685
172. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3686
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3687
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3688
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3689
173. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3690
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3691
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3692
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3693
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3695
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3696
175. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3697
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3698
176. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3700
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3701
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3702
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3707
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3711
179. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3712
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3713
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3714
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3715
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3718
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3720
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3721
182. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3722
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3723
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3726
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3727
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3729
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3730
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3733
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3734
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3736
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3737
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3740
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3741
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3743
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3744
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3746
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3751
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3752
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3756
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3757
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3760
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3763
194. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3764
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3765
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3766
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3767
195. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3768
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3769
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3770
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3771
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3774
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3775
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3778
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3779
198. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3780
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3781
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3782
199. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3783
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3784
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3785
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3786
200. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3787
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 3788
201. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3789
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 3790
202. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3791
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 3792
203. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3793
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7905287). 3794
204. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3795
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 3796
205. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3797
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7874677). 3798
206. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3799
207. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3801
208. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3803
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 3804
209. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3805
210. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3807
211. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3809
212. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3811
213. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3813
214. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3815
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3816
215. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3817
216. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3819
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3820
217. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3821
218. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3823
219. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3825
220. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3827
221. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3829
222. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3831
223. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3833
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3834
224. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3835
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3836
225. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3837
226. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3839
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3840
227. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3841
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3842
228. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3843
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3844
229. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3845
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 3846
230. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3847
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3848
231. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3849
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3850
232. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3851
233. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3853
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3854
234. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3855
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3856
235. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3857
236. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3859
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3860
237. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3861
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3862
238. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3863
239. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3865
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3866
240. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3867
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3868
241. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3869
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3870
242. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3871
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3872
243. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3873
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 3874
244. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3875
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3876
245. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3877
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3878
246. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3879
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3880
247. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3881
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3882
248. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3883
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3884
249. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3885
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3886
250. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3887
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3888
251. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3889
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3890
252. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3891
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3892
253. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3893
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3894
254. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3895
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3896
255. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3897
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3898
256. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3899
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3900
257. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3901
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3902
258. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3903
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3904
259. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3905
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3906
260. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3907
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3908
261. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3909
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3910
262. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3911
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3912
263. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3913
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3914
264. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3915
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3916
265. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3917
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3918
266. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3919
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3920
267. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3921
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3922
268. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3923
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3924
269. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3925
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3926
270. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3927
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3928
271. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3929
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3930
272. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3931
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3932
273. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3933
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3934
274. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3935
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3936
275. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3937
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3938
276. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3939
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3940
277. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3941
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3942
278. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3943
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3944
279. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3945
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3946
280. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3947
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3948
281. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3949
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3950
282. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3951
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3952
283. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3953
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3954
284. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3955
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3956
285. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3957
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3958
286. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3959
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 3960
287. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3961
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 3962
288. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3963
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3964
289. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3965
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 3966
290. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3967
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3968
291. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3969
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3970
292. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3971
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 3972
293. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3973
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3974
294. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3975
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3976
295. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3977
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 3978
296. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3979
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3980
297. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3981
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 3982
298. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3983
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3984
299. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3985
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3986
300. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3987
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 3988
301. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3989
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3990
302. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3991
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3992
303. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3993
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 3994
304. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3995
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 3996
305. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3997
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 3998
306. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3999
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4000
307. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4001
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4002
308. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4003
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4004
309. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4005
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4006
310. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4007
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4008
311. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4009
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4010
312. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4011
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4012
313. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4013
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4014
314. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4015
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4016
315. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4017
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4018
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Mat by Hyper Matte of Matrix-Based 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 Mat by Hyper Matte of Matrix-Based 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 mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In Cancer's

Preprint · May 2023

478 PUBLICATIONS 17,577 CITATIONS

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

Neutrosophic Graphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based 2

In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperMatrix-Based). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 10

Matrix-Based 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-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 13

e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 14

The incidence matrix forms;

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 15

e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 16

The incidence matrix forms;

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 18

v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 19

The adjacency matrix forms;

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 20

v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based criteria holds 21

The adjacency matrix forms;

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

SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 23

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and 24

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatrix-Based). Assume 25

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 SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 28

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and 29

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 30

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 31

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 32

consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 33

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based; a 34

Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, 35

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and 36

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 37

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 38

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 39

Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 40

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatrix-Based; an 41

Extreme SuperHyperMatrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 42

e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic 43

v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for 44

an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 45

Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 47

of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 48

Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 50

SuperHyperMatrix-Based SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 51

e-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, Neutrosophic 52

v-SuperHyperMatrix-Based, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperMatrix-Based and C(N SHG) for a 53

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 54

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 55

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 56

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 57

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 58