Ew Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371487997
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units
Preprint · June 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8025707
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
483 PUBLICATIONS 18,419 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Combinatorics View project
Neutrosophic Graphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 11 June 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra 3
On Super Units 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
SuperHyperUnited Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 10
United Dominating 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-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 14
∀Ea , ∃Eb0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Ei0 , : ∃Ec ∈ Eb0 , ∃Vd ∈ VN SHG , Vd ∈ Ea ∩ Ec

but∀Ea0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Ei0 , ∀Vb ∈ VN SHG : ∃Ec ∈ EN SHG , ∀Ed ∈ Ea0 , Vb 6∈ Ec ∩ Ed ;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 16

but∀Ea0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Ei0 , ∀Vb ∈ VN SHG : ∃Ec ∈ EN SHG , ∀Ed ∈ Ea0 , Vb 6∈ Ec ∩ Ed ;
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 17
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is called 18
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 19
∀Va , ∃Vb0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Vi0 , : ∃Vc ∈ Vb0 , ∃Ed ∈ EN SHG , ∈ Va , Vc ∈ Ed

but∀Va0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Vi0 , ∀Eb ∈ EN SHG : ∃Vc ∈ VN SHG , ∀Vd ∈ Va0 , Vc , Vd 6∈ Eb ;
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 21

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

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 467
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 468
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 469
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. 470
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 471
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 472
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 473
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 474
SuperHyperPath . 475
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 476
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 478
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 479
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 480
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 481
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 482
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 483
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 484
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 485
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 486
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 487
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 488
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 489
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 490
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 491
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 493
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 494
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 496
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 497
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 498
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 499
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited 500
Dominating). 501
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 503
either V 0 or E 0 is called 504
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is 505
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 506

but∀Ea0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Ei0 , ∀Vb ∈ VN SHG : ∃Ec ∈ EN SHG , ∀Ed ∈ Ea0 , Vb 6∈ Ec , Ed ;
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is 507
called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 508

but∀Ea0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Ei0 , ∀Vb ∈ VN SHG : ∃Ec ∈ EN SHG , ∀Ed ∈ Ea0 , Vb 6∈ Ec , Ed ;
and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 509
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is 510
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 511

(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is 512
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 513

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 514
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 515
e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, 516
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited 517
Dominating. 518
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperUnited Dominating). 519
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 522
Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 525
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 526
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence 527
of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 528
form the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 529
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 530
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 533
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 534
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 535
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 536
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 537
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 538
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic 539
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 542
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 543
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 544
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 545
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 546
Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 547
Extreme coefficient; 548
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 549
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 552
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 553
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 554
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 555
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating; and the Neutrosophic 558
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 559
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 560
Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 563
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 564
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme 565
sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 566
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 567
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 568
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 571
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of 572
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 573
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 575
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnited Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 576
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 582
Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 585
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 587
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 590
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 593
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating; and the Neutrosophic 596
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 597
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperUnited Dominating). 598
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 599
(i) an δ−SuperHyperUnited Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 600
SuperHyperUnited Dominating such that either of the following expressions hold for the 601
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 602
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 603
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 604
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperUnited Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of 605
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating such that either of the following 606
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 607
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 608
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 609
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 610
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 611
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating, there’s a need to 612
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 613
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 614
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 615
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 616
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 617
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 618
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 619
understandable. 620
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 621
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 622
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperUnited Dominating, 623
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 624
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 625
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 626
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 627
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 628
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited 629
Dominating. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic 630
SuperHyperUnited Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 631
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating, there’s a need to 632
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating”. The 633
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 634
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 635
assign to the values. 636
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperUnited Dominating. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 637
SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 638

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But As The United Dominating 639
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 640
Forms 641
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 642
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V is called 644
Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is called 645
Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic probability 646
of A. 647
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 648
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 650
Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 651
s-independent criteria 652
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 653
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 654
criteria 655
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 656
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Any k-function United Dominating like E is called 658
Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function United Dominating like E is called 659
Neutrosophic Variable. 660
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 661
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 662
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a number is 664
called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 665
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 666
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 667
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. A Neutrosophic number is called 669
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 670
Crossing criteria 671
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 672
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let m and n propose 673
special United Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 674
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 675
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 676
Neutrosophic independently with probability United Dominating p := 4n/m, and set 677
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 678
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 679
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
680
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 681
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet 682
of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the 683
plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then 684
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 685
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 686
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points 687
on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 688
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 689
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 690
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 691
2 3
again l < 32n /k . 692
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet 694
of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 695
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 696
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 697
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 698
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 699
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 700
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
701
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 702
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on 703
the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 704
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 705
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 706
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 707
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 708
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 709
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 710
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 711
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 712
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let X be a nonnegative 713
Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 714
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. 715
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 716
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let Xn be a nonnegative 717
integer-valued variable in a probability United Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as 718
n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 719
Proof. 720
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. A special 722
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 723
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p 725
is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 726
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 727
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 728
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 729
G. 730
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 731
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 732
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 733
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 734
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: 735
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 736
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 737
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 738
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 739
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 740
stability number at most k. 741
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 742
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a number is 744
called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 745
Variance criteria 746
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let X be a Neutrosophic 748
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 749
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let X be a Neutrosophic Variable 751
and let t be a positive real number. Then 752
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
753
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let Xn be a Neutrosophic 755
Variable in a probability United Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 756
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 757
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 759
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 760
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 761
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 763
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 764
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 765
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 766
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. As in the proof of related Theorem, 768
the result is straightforward. 769
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f 771
and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 772
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 773
or 774
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 775
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 777
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 778
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 780
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 781
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 782
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 783
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 784
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 785
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 787
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 788
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 789
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let F be a nonempty 791
balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 792
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 793
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 794
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 796
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 797
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 798
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 799
SuperHyperUnited Dominating, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 800
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 801
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 802
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 803
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 804
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 805
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 806
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 807
SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 808
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic United Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic United Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-United Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-United Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
809
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 812
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 813
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 814
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 815
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 816
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 817


{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
819
straightforward. 822

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
823



{{E5 , E4 }, {E2 }}.
= z 2 + z.
{{V1 , V2 }, {V4 }}.
= z 2 + z.
827


{}.
= 0z 0 .
{{V1 , V6 }, {V9 , V15 }}.
= 2z 2 .
831

{{Ei }17 22
i=12 , {Ei }i=18 }.
= z6 + z5.
{{Vi }6i=1 , {Vi , V21 }10
i=7 }.
= z6 + z5.
835


{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
839

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



843

{{E3i+1 }1i=0 {E3i+1 , E23 }3i=2 }.
= z3 + z2.
{{V3i+1 }1i=0 {V3i+1 , V11 }3i=2 }.
= z6 + z5.
847

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

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
851

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
855

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{V1 , V2 , V3 }, {V7 , V8 }}.
= z3 + z2.

859

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
863

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



867

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
871


{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
875

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
879




{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
883

{{E3i+1 }1i=0 {E3i+1 }3i=2 }.
= 2z 2 .
{{V2i+1 }1i=0 {V2i+1 }5i=2 }.
= z4 + z2.
887


{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
891

{E2 }.
= z |E2 | .
{V1 }.
= z |V1 | .



895

{{E3i+1 }1i=0 {E3i+1 }3i=2 }.
= 2z 2 .
{{V2i+1 }1i=0 {V2i+1 }5i=2 }.
= z4 + z2.
899
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 900
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 901
Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 902
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 903
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 904
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 905
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 906
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 907
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 908
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominating minus all Neutrosophic 909
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 910
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 911
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominating, minus all 912
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 913
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-United Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating 914
is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of 915
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Neutrosophic 916
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Neutrosophic 917
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 918
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic United Dominating in some cases but the 919
maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Neutrosophic 920
number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 921
are contained in a Neutrosophic R-United Dominating. 922
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-United Dominating has, the least Neutrosophic
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality, is the
Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-United Dominating with the least Neutrosophic 923
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 924
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 925
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 926
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nitedDominating

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nitedDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nitedDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−U nitedDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-United Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower 927
sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-United Dominating is the 928
cardinality of 929

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

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-United Dominating
since neither amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor amount of
SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of

SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the

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

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

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

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-United Dominating.
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 930
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 931
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 932
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 933
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 934
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 935
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 936
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 937
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating decorates the

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Neutrosophic connections so
as this Neutrosophic style implies different versions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges

with the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Neutrosophic bound is to have the
maximum Neutrosophic groups of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have perfect
Neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the
used Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its Neutrosophic properties taken
from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no
Neutrosophic connection. Furthermore, the Neutrosophic existence of one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has no Neutrosophic effect to talk about the Neutrosophic R-United
Dominating. Since at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in
the Neutrosophic background of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge but at least two
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices make the Neutrosophic version of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the Neutrosophic setting of non-obvious Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary
to mention that the word “Simple” is used as Neutrosophic adjective for the initial
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no Neutrosophic appearance of the
loop Neutrosophic version of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The Neutrosophic adjective “loop” on the
basic Neutrosophic framework engages one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it never
happens in this Neutrosophic setting. With these Neutrosophic bases, on a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
thus there’s at least a Neutrosophic R-United Dominating has the Neutrosophic cardinality of
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a Neutrosophic R-United Dominating has the
Neutrosophic cardinality at least a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Assume a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a
Neutrosophic R-United Dominating since either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is an
obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no
Neutrosophic usage of this Neutrosophic framework and even more there’s no
Neutrosophic connection inside or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and
as its consequences, there’s a Neutrosophic contradiction with the term “Neutrosophic
R-United Dominating” since the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality never happens for this
Neutrosophic style of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no
Neutrosophic connection inside as mentioned in first Neutrosophic case in the forms of
drawback for this selected Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This Neutrosophic case implies having the Neutrosophic style of
on-quasi-triangle Neutrosophic style on the every Neutrosophic elements of this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating is the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that some
Neutrosophic amount of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle
Neutrosophic style. The Neutrosophic cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet

But the lower Neutrosophic bound is up. Thus the minimum Neutrosophic cardinality
of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality ends up the Neutrosophic discussion. The
first Neutrosophic term refers to the Neutrosophic setting of the Neutrosophic

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-United Dominating for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used 938
Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case and the 939
common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific Neutrosophic 940
SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are Neutrosophic 941
free-quasi-triangle. 942
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic R-United Dominating is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating but
with slightly differences in the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality amid those
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,

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

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 943
Neutrosophic R-United Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
944
Neutrosophic R-United Dominating =

Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominating where E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic intended
SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic United Dominating, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could
be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic
cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-United 945
Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 946
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 947
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 948
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 949
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic United Dominating in some 950
cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 951
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 952
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-United Dominating. 953
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 954
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 955
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 956
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 957
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 958
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 959
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 960
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 961
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 962
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 963
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 964
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominating where the 965
Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, 966
a Neutrosophic embedded R-United Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 967
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 968
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 969
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 970
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. 971
The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are included in the 972
minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded Neutrosophic R-United Dominating. The 973
interior types of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the 974
Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior 975
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more 976
formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any 977
distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-United 978
Dominating. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one 979
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the 980
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In 981
the embedded Neutrosophic United Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior Neutrosophic 982
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 983
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Neutrosophic 984
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 985
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in 986
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating. 987
The Neutrosophic R-United Dominating with the exclusion of the exclusion of all 988
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and with other 989
terms, the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating with the inclusion of all Neutrosophic 990
SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic 991
quasi-R-United Dominating. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic 992
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 993
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior 994
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-United 995
Dominating minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of 996
them. In other words, there’s only an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 997
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an 998
Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominating, minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to 999
some of them but not all of them. 1000
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating has two titles. a 1001
Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum Neutrosophic 1002
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any 1003
Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominating with that 1004
quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 1005
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1006
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1007
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominatings for all Neutrosophic numbers 1008
less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1009
Neutrosophic United Dominating ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1010
Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominating, again and more in the operations of collecting all 1011
the Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominatings acted on the all possible used formations of the 1012
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic number. This 1013
Neutrosophic number is 1014
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-United Dominatings. Let 1015
zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and GNeutrosophic United Dominating be a 1016
Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic United Dominating. 1017
Then 1018
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic United Dominating ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic United Dominating is 1019
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1020
GNeutrosophic United Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number
{SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1021
technical definition for the Neutrosophic United Dominating. 1022
GNeutrosophic United Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1023
United Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1024

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1025

= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1026


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1027
GNeutrosophic United Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =


1028

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

1029


1030


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1031
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1032
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1033
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1034
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-United Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the 1035
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-United Dominating” since “Neutrosophic Quasi-United 1036
Dominating” happens “Neutrosophic United Dominating” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1037
as initial framework and background but “Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may 1038
not happens “Neutrosophic United Dominating” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 1039
initial framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about 1040
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the 1041
terms, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-United Dominating”, 1042
and “Neutrosophic United Dominating” are up. 1043
Thus, let 1044
zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1045
GNeutrosophic United Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1046
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic United Dominating and the new terms are up. 1047
GNeutrosophic United Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1048

{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1049

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1050

And with go back to initial structure, 1051
GNeutrosophic United Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =


1052

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1053


1054


Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1055
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-United Dominating if 1056
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some 1057
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic 1058
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic 1059
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1060
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1061
are coming up. 1062
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

Is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating.

The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-United Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1063
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1064
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1065
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic 1066
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1067
Neutrosophic United Dominating is related to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the

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

R-United Dominating. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-United Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1068
ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 1069
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 1070
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1071
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic United Dominating and it’s an Neutrosophic 1072
United Dominating. Since it’s 1073
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

United Dominating, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1074
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1075
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1076
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1077
“Neutrosophic R-United Dominating” 1078
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1079
Neutrosophic R-United Dominating, 1080
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating amid those
obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic United Dominating,
are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1081
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-United Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-United Dominating is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1082
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1083
quasi-R-United Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic 1084
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1085
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all 1086
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1087
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1088
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1089
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1090
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1091
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1092
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1093
Neutrosophic R-United Dominating with the least cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic 1094
bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1095
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1096
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1097
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1098
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1099
R-United Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1100
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1102
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1103
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1104
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1105
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-United Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1106
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1107
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1108
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1109
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1110
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1111
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1112
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1113
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1114
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-United Dominating, VESHE is up. The obvious simple 1115
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-United Dominating, VESHE , is a 1116
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1117
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1118
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1119
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1120
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1121
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1122
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1123
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1124
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1125
Neutrosophic R-United Dominating only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1126
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1127
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1128
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1129
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1130
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1131
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1132
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, United Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1133
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1134
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1135
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic United Dominating. The Neutrosophic 1136
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1137

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nitedDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−U nitedDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−U nitedDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic United Dominating . The 1138
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1139
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1140

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic United Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1141
ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1142
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1144
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1145
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1146
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1147
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic United Dominating is up. 1148
The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic United 1149
Dominating is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two Neutrosophic 1150
SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1151

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1153
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1154
Neutrosophic United Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1155
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1156

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic United 1157
Dominating. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1158

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic United Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1160
ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 1161
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 1162
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1163
called the Neutrosophic United Dominating and it’s an Neutrosophic United Dominating. Since 1164
it’s 1165
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1167
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1168
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1169
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1170
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1171

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic United Dominating , 1172

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic United 1173
, not:
Dominating 1174

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1175

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1176
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1177
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1178
“Neutrosophic United Dominating ” 1179
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1180
Neutrosophic United Dominating , 1181
is only and only 1182

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1183
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1184
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1185
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1186
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1187
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1188
Then 1189

|E |
{{E3i+1 }1i=0 {E3i+1 }i=2ESHP }.
= z |EESHP |−1 + z 2 .
|V |
{{V2i+1 }1i=0 {V2i+1 }i=2
ESHP
}.
= z VESHP |−1 + z 2 .
Proof. Let 1190
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1191
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1192
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1193
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 1194
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperUnited Dominating. The latter 1195
is straightforward. 1196
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1197
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1198
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1199
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1200
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Example (16.5)
Then 1201

|E |
{{E3i+1 }1i=0 {E3i+1 }i=2ESHP }.
= z |EESHP |−1 + z 2 .
|V |
{{V2i+1 }1i=0 {V2i+1 }i=2
ESHP
}.
= z VESHP |−1 + z 2 .
Proof. Let 1202
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1203
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1204
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1205

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1209
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1210
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1211
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1213
Then 1214

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1215
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1216
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1217
There’s a new way to redefine as 1218

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1222
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1223
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1224
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1225
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1226
1227
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1228
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1229

|P |
{{E3i+1 }1i=0 {E3i+1 }i=2
ESHP
}.
= z |PESHP |−1 + z 2 .
|P |
{{V2i+1 }1i=0 {V2i+1 }i=2
ESHP
}.
= z PESHP |−1 + z 2 .
Proof. Let 1230
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1231
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1232
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1233

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Thus the 1236
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperUnited 1237
Dominating could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every 1238
SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1239
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperUnited Dominating taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1240
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1241
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1242
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Example (16.11)
solution 1243
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1244
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1245
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1246
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1247
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1248
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1249
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1250
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1251
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1252

|P |
{{E3i+1 }1i=0 {E3i+1 }i=2
ESHP
}.
= z |PESHP |−1 + z 2 .
|P |
{{V2i+1 }1i=0 {V2i+1 }i=2
ESHP
}.
= z PESHP |−1 + z 2 .
Proof. Let 1253
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1254
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1256

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Thus the 1259
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperUnited 1260

0
Dominating could be applied. There are only z SuperHyperParts. Thus every 1261
SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1262
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1263
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1264
solution 1266
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1268
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1269
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1270
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1271
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1272
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1273
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1274
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Example (16.13)
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1275
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1276

|E |
{{E3i+1 }1i=0 {E3i+1 }i=2ESHP }.
= z |EESHP |−1 + z 2 .
|V |
{{V2i+1 }1i=0 {V2i+1 }i=2
ESHP
}.
= z VESHP |−1 + z 2 .
Proof. Let 1277
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1278
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1280

Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.15)
is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Thus the notion 1283
of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperUnited Dominating could 1284
be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperUnited Dominating proposes some longest 1285
SuperHyperUnited Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1286
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1289
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1290
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1291
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1292
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1294
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1295
For the SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating, and the 1296
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating, some general results are introduced. 1297
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating is “redefined” 1298
on the positions of the alphabets. 1299
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Then 1300
N eutrosophic SuperHyperU nitedDominating =

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

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

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

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1490
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1491
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1492
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1493
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1494
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1495
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1496
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such 1497
that 1498
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1499
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1500
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1501
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then 1502
(i) S is SuperHyperUnited Dominating set; 1503
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1504
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1505
Then 1506
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1507
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1508
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1509
which is connected. Then 1510
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1511
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1512
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1513
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1514
SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1515
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1516
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1517
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1518
a dual SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1519
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1520
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1521
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1522
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1523
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1524
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1525
dual SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1526
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Then 1527
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1528
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1530
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1531
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1532
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1533
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Then 1535
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1536
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1538
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1539
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1540
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1542
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1543
(ii) Γ = 1; 1544
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1545
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1546
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1547
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1548
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1549
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1550
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1551
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1552
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1553
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1554
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited 1555
Dominating; 1556
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1557
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1558
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1559
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1561
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited 1562
Dominating; 1563
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1564
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 1565
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1566
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1568
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1569
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1570
SuperHyperUnited Dominating for N SHF; 1571
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1572
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1573
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperUnited 1574
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1575
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1576
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1577
SuperHyperSet. Then 1578
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1579
SuperHyperUnited Dominating for N SHF; 1580
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1581
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1582
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperUnited 1583
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1584
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1585
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1586
SuperHyperSet. Then 1587
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited 1588
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1589
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1590
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1591
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperUnited Dominating 1592
for N SHF : (V, E). 1593
Then following statements hold; 1595
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1596
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then S is an 1597
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1598
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1599
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then S is a dual 1600
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1601
Then following statements hold; 1603
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1604
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then S is an 1605
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1606
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1607
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then S is a dual 1608
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1609
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1610
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1611
statements hold; 1612
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1613
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1614
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c

+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1615
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1617
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1619
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1620
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1621
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1622
statements hold; 1623
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1624
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1626
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1628
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1630
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1631
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1633
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1634
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1635
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

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

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

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1648
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1650
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1651
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1653
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperUnited 1655
Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1656
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1657
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1659
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1661
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1664
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperUnited 1666
Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1667
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1668
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1670
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1672
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1675
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1676
Neutrosophic Recognition 1677
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1678
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1679
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1680
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1681
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1682
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1683
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1684
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1685
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1686
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1687
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1688
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1689
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1690
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1691
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1692
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1693
happened and what’s done. 1694
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1695
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1696
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1697
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1698
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnited Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 1699
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1700
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating or the Neutrosophic 1701
SuperHyperUnited Dominating in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1702
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1703
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1704
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1705
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1706
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1707
featured. 1708
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1709
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1710
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1711
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1712
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1713
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1715
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1716
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1717
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1718
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1719
Neutrosophic featured. 1720
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1721
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1722
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1723
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1724
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1725
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1727
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1728
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1729
The SuperHyperUnited Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating are 1730
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1731
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1732
recognitions? 1733
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperUnited Dominating 1734
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating? 1735
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1736
compute them? 1737
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1738
SuperHyperUnited Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating? 1739
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperUnited Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited 1740
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on

Dominating 1741
SuperHyperUnited Dominating, are there else? 1742
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1743
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1744
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1745
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1746
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1747
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1748
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1749
highlighted. 1750
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1751
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1752
SuperHyperUnited Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 1753
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based 1754
on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1755
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating, finds the convenient 1756
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1757
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1758
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1759
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1760
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUnited Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1761
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1762
the SuperHyperUnited Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating. The 1763
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1764
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1765
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1766
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1767
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1768
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1769
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1770
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1771
formally called “ SuperHyperUnited Dominating” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1772
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1773
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this 1774
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1775
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperUnited Dominating
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1776
Forms 1778
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1779
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1783
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1784
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1785
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1786
|Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1787
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1788
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1789
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1790
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1791
|Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1792
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1793
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1794
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1795
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1796
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1799
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1801
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1802
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1803
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1804
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1806
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1807
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1810
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1811
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1814
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1815
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1816
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1817
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1818
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1819
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1820
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1821
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1823
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1825
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1826
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1828
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1829
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1830
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1831
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 1832
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 1833
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1834
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1835
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1836
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1841
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1843
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1844
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1848
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1851
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1852
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1857
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1858
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1860
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1862
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1868
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1871
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1872
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1876
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1877
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1878
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1879
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1880
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1881
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1882
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1883
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 1993
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Emini |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) | , Vmin i |Pi
ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) |+1

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperDuality. Thus the notion of quasi 1998
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1999
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2000
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2001
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2002
solution 2005
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2012

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

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

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

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

∃!Ez∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
∗
, ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL ∈ Ez∗ ≡
∃!Ez∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
∗
, {ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL } ⊆ Ez∗ .
The unique embedded SuperHyperDuality proposes some longest SuperHyperDuality 2045
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2046
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2053
Forms 2055
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2056
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2060
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2061
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2062
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2063
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2065
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2066
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2067
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2068
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2070
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2071
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2072
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2073
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2076
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2077
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2078
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 2079
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2080
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2081
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2083
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2084
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2086
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2087
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2091
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2092
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2093
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2094
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2095
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2100
coefficient; 2101
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2102
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2105
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2107
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2108
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2111
coefficient; 2112
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2113
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2116
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2117
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2118
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2120
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2121
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2128
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2129
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2137
coefficient; 2138
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2139
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2145
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2148
coefficient. 2149
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2153
SuperHyperJoin. 2161
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2271
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2276
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2277
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2278
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2280
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2281
solution 2283
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2290

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2549
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2554
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2555
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2556
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2557
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2558
solution 2561
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2568

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

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

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

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

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2595

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2599
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2600
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2601
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2602
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2609
Forms 2611
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2612
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2616
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2617
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2618
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2619
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2621
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2622
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2623
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2624
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2626
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2627
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2628
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2629
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2632
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2634
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2637
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2639
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2640
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2642
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2647
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2648
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2649
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2656
coefficient; 2657
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2658
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2664
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2667
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2669
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2674
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2676
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2677
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2684
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2685
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2693
coefficient; 2694
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2695
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2701
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2704
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2709
SuperHyperTotal. 2717
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2873

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3161
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3162
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3163
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3164
17 Background 3172
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3173
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3174
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3175
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3176
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3177
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3178
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3179
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3180
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 3181
1 with pages 37-60. 3182
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3183
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3184
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3185
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3186
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3187
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3188
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3189
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3190
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3191
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3192
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3193
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3194
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3195
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3196
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3197
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3198
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3199
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3200
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3201
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3202
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3203
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3204
SuperHyperNumbers. 3205
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3206
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3207
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3208
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3209
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3210
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3211
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3212
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3213
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3214
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3215
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3216
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3217
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3218
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3219
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3220
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3221
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3222
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3223
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3224
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3225
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3226
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3227
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3228
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3229
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3230
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3231
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3232
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3233
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3234
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3235
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3236
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3237
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3238
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3239
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3240
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3241
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3242
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3243
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3244
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3245
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3246
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3247
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3248
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3249
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3250
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3251
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3252
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3253
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3254
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3255
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3256
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3257
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3258
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3259
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3260
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3261
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3262
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3263
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3264
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3265
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3266
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3267
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3268
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3269
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3270
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3271
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3272
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3273
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3274
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3275
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3276
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3277
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3278
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3279
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3280
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3281
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [174] by Henry 3282
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3283
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3284
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [175] by Henry Garrett 3285
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3286
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3287
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [176] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3288
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3289
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3290
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [177] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3291
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3292
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [180] by 3293
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3294
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3295
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [181] by Henry 3296
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3297
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3298
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [184] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3299
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3300
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [187] by Henry 3301
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3302
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3303
in Ref. [188] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3304
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3305
Ref. [189] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3306
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3307
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [190] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3308
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3309
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [191] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3310
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3311
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [192] by Henry Garrett 3312
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3313
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [203] by Henry 3314
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3315
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3316
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [204] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [?, 4–204], there 3317
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3318
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3319
at [205–320]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3320
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [321, 322]. 3321
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3322
proposed as book in Ref. [321] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3323
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3324
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3325
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3326
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3327
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3328
proposed as book in Ref. [322] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3329
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3330
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3331
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3332
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3333
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3334
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3335
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3336
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3337
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3338
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [?, 4–204] 3339
alongside scientific research books at [205–320]. Two popular scientific research books 3340
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic 3341
science is on [321, 322]. 3342
References 3343
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3344
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Current Trends in Mass 3345
Communication 1(1) (2023) 37-60. 3346
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3347
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3348
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3349
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3350
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3351
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3352
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3353
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3354
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3355
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3356
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3357
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3358
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3359
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3360
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. 3361
(https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/neutrosophic-codegree- 3362
and-neutrosophic-degree-alongside-chromatic-numbers-in-the-setting-of-some- 3363
classes-related-to-neut.pdf) 3364
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3365
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3366
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3367
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3368
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3369
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3370
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3371
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3372
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3373
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3374
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3375
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3376
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3377
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3378
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3379
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3380
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3381
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3382
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3383
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3384
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3385
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3386
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3387
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3388
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3389
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3390
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3391
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3392
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3393
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3394
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3395
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3396
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3397
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3398
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3399
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3400
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3401
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3402
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3403
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3404
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3405
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3406
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3407
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3408
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3409
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3410
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3411
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3412
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3413
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3414
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3415
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3416
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3417
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3418
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3419
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3420
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3421
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3422
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3423
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3425
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3429
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3430
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3431
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3432
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3433
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3434
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3435
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3436
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3437
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3438
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3439
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3440
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3441
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3442
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3443
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3444
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3445
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3446
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3447
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3448
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3450
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3451
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3452
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3453
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3454
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3456
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3457
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3458
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3459
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3460
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3462
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7940830). 3463
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3464
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3465
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943578). 3466
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3468
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3469
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3470
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3472
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3474
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3475
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3476
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3477
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3480
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3481
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3482
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3483
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3484
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3485
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3486
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3488
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3489
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3491
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3494
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3497
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3500
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3501
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3503
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3506
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3508
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3509
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3512
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3515
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3518
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3519
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3521
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3524
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3525
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3527
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3530
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3533
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3536
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3539
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3542
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3543
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3545
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3546
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3548
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3549
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3551
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3554
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3557
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3558
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3560
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3563
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3564
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3565
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3567
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3568
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3570
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3571
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3572
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3573
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3576
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3579
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3580
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3582
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3583
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3585
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3588
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3591
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3594
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3597
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3600
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3603
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3606
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3609
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3611
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3612
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3613
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3615
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3618
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3619
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3620
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3622
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3624
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3627
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3630
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3631
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3633
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3634
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3636
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3637
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3638
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3639
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3640
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3642
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3645
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3648
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3649
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3651
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3654
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3656
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3658
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3660
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3662
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3663
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3666
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3668
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3669
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3672
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3674
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3676
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3678
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3680
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3681
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3684
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3685
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3687
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3690
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3692
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3694
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3696
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3697
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3699
109. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3701
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3703
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3705
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3706
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3707
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3708
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3709
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3711
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3712
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3713
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3714
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3717
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3719
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3720
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3723
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3725
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3726
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3729
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3731
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3733
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3735
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3736
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3737
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3738
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3741
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3742
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3743
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3744
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3747
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3748
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3749
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3750
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3753
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3754
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3755
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3756
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3759
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3760
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3761
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3762
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3765
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3766
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3767
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3768
132. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3770
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3771
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3774
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3775
134. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3776
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3777
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3780
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3781
136. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3782
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3783
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3786
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3788
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3789
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3792
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3794
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3795
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3797
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3798
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3801
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3804
144. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3806
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3807
145. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3809
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3810
146. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3812
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3813
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3814
147. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3815
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3816
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3817
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3818
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3819
149. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3821
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3822
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3823
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3824
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3825
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3826
151. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3827
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3828
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3829
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3830
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3833
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3834
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3837
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3838
154. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3839
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3841
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3842
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3845
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3846
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3849
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3850
157. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3851
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3852
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3853
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3854
158. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3855
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3856
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3857
159. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3858
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3859
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3860
160. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3861
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3862
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3863
161. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3864
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3865
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3866
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3867
162. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3868
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3869
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3870
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3871
163. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3872
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3873
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3874
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3875
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3876
164. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3877
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3878
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3879
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3880
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3881
165. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3882
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3883
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3884
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3885
166. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3886
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3887
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3888
167. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3889
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3890
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3892
168. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3893
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3894
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3895
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3896
169. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3897
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3898
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3899
170. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3900
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3901
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3902
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3903
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3904
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3905
171. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3906
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3907
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3908
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3909
172. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3910
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3911
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3912
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3913
173. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3914
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3915
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3916
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3917
174. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3918
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3919
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3920
175. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3921
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3922
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3923
176. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3925
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3926
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3927
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3928
177. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3929
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3930
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3931
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3932
178. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3933
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3934
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3935
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3936
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3938
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3939
180. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3940
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3941
181. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3943
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3944
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3945
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3950
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3954
184. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3955
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3956
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3957
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3958
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3961
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3963
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3964
187. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3965
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3966
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3969
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3970
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3972
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3973
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3976
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3977
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3979
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3980
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3983
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3984
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3986
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3987
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3989
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3994
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3995
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3999
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 4000
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4003
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 4006
199. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4007
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4008
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4009
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4010
200. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4011
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4012
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4013
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 4014
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4017
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4018
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4021
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 4022
203. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4023
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4024
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4025
204. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4026
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4027
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4028
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4029
205. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4030
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 4031
206. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4032
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 4033
207. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4034
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 4035
208. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4036
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 4037
209. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4038
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 4039
210. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4040
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7905287). 4041
211. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4042
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 4043
212. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4044
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7874677). 4045
213. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4046
214. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4048
215. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4050
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 4051
216. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4052
217. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4054
218. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4056
219. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4058
220. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4060
221. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4062
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4063
222. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4064
223. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4066
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4067
224. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4068
225. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4070
226. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4072
227. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4074
228. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4076
229. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4078
230. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4080
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4081
231. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4082
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4083
232. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4084
233. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4086
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4087
234. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4088
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4089
235. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4090
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4091
236. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4092
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4093
237. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4094
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4095
238. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4096
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4097
239. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4098
240. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4100
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4101
241. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4102
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4103
242. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4104
243. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4106
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4107
244. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4108
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4109
245. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4110
246. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4112
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4113
247. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4114
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4115
248. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4116
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4117
249. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4118
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4119
250. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4120
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4121
251. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4122
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4123
252. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4124
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4125
253. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4126
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4127
254. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4128
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4129
255. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4130
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4131
256. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4132
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4133
257. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4134
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4135
258. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4136
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4137
259. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4138
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4139
260. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4140
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4141
261. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4142
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4143
262. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4144
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4145
263. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4146
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4147
264. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4148
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4149
265. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4150
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4151
266. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4152
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4153
267. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4154
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4155
268. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4156
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4157
269. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4158
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4159
270. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4160
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4161
271. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4162
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4163
272. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4164
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4165
273. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4166
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4167
274. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4168
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4169
275. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4170
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4171
276. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4172
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4173
277. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4174
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4175
278. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4176
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4177
279. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4178
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4179
280. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4180
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4181
281. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4182
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4183
282. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4184
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4185
283. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4186
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4187
284. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4188
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4189
285. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4190
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4191
286. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4192
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4193
287. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4194
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4195
288. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4196
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4197
289. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4198
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4199
290. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4200
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4201
291. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4202
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4203
292. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4204
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4205
293. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4206
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4207
294. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4208
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4209
295. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4210
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4211
296. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4212
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4213
297. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4214
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4215
298. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4216
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4217
299. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4218
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4219
300. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4220
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4221
301. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4222
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4223
302. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4224
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4225
303. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4226
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4227
304. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4228
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4229
305. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4230
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4231
306. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4232
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4233
307. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4234
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4235
308. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4236
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4237
309. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4238
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4239
310. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4240
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4241
311. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4242
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4243
312. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4244
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4245
313. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4246
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4247
314. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4248
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4249
315. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4250
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4251
316. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4252
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4253
317. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4254
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4255
318. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4256
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4257
319. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4258
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4259
320. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4260
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4261
321. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4262
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4263
322. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4264
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4265
View publication stats

Ew Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units

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

Ew Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · June 2023

483 PUBLICATIONS 18,419 CITATIONS

On Combinatorics View project

Neutrosophic Graphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra 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

SuperHyperUnited Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 10

United Dominating 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-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 14

∀Ea , ∃Eb0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Ei0 , : ∃Ec ∈ Eb0 , ∃Vd ∈ VN SHG , Vd ∈ Ea ∩ Ec

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is called 15

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 16

∀Ea , ∃Eb0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Ei0 , : ∃Ec ∈ Eb0 , ∃Vd ∈ VN SHG , Vd ∈ Ea ∩ Ec

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is called 18

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 19

∀Va , ∃Vb0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Vi0 , : ∃Vc ∈ Vb0 , ∃Ed ∈ EN SHG , ∈ Va , Vc ∈ Ed

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited Dominating if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating criteria holds 21

∀Va , ∃Vb0 ∈ ∪zi=1 Vi0 , : ∃Vc ∈ Vb0 , ∃Ed ∈ EN SHG , ∈ Va , Vc ∈ Ed

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

SuperHyperUnited Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, 23

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, 24

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperUnited 25

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

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

called an Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 28

e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic 29

v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited Dominating and 30

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

SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 33

Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 35

e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic 36

v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited Dominating and 37

C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 38

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 39

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 40

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 41

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnited Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating 42

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, 43

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, 44

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 45

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

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

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

Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 49

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

SuperHyperUnited Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 52

e-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Neutrosophic 53

v-SuperHyperUnited Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnited Dominating and 54

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

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 56

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 57

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 58

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 59