New Ideas On Super Units by Hyper Ultra of United Dominating in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371492733
New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United Dominating In Recognition

of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · June 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8027275
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
485 PUBLICATIONS 18,561 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic Graphs View project
On Fuzzy Logic View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 12 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 On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 2
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3
SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
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
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 72
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 73
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 74
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 75
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
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 90
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 “Extreme 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 “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 242
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 Extreme 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
Extreme 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 an 264
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperUnited Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 265
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 266
either the optimal SuperHyperUnited Dominating or the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating 267
in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that 268
in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two 269
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 “Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating” on 283
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 284
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 285
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 Extreme 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
Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperUnited 297
Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating”. In the sense of tackling on getting 298
results and in United Dominating to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of 299
SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their 300
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in 301
this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme 302
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 303
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 304
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 305
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 306
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 307
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 308
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 309
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 310
SuperHyperUnited Dominating”, “Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating”, “Results on 311
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 312
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 313
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 314
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperUnited Dominating”. 315
The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 316
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 317
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 Extreme 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
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 521
(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
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 580
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 581
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 582
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 583
Extreme 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
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 591
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 592
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 593
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 Extreme SuperHyper But As The United Dominating 639
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 640
Forms 641
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 642
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 643
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is called 644
Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called Extreme 645
event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 646
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 647
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 649
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 650
s-independent criteria 651
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 652
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 653
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 654
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Any k-function United Dominating like E is called 656
Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function United Dominating like E is called 657
Extreme Variable. 658
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 659
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 660
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 662
called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 663
Expectation criteria 664
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 665
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. an Extreme number is called Extreme 667
Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 668
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 669
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let m and n propose special United 670
Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 671
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 672
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 673
independently with probability United Dominating p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 674
H := G[S]. 675
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 676
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
677
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 678
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n points 679
in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

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

P
697
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 698
between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at 699
least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 700
n−1
X
e(H) = ini = 2k − n1 − 2n2 ≥ 2k − 2n.
i=3
Some SuperHyperPairs of SuperHyperVertices of H might be joined by some parallel 701
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 702
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 703
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 704
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 705
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 706
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 707
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 708
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let X be a nonnegative 709
Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 710
E(X)
P (X ≥ t) ≤ .
t
Proof.
X X
E(X) = {X(a)P (a) : a ∈ V } ≥ {X(a)P (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t}
X X
{tP (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t} = t {P (a) : a ∈ V, X(a) ≥ t}
tP (X ≥ t).
Dividing the first and last members by t yields the asserted inequality. 711
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 712
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let Xn be a nonnegative 713
integer-valued variable in a probability United Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as 714
n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 715
Proof. 716
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 717
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. A special 718
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 719
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. 721
Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, 722
where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 723
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 724
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 725
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 726
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 727
E(XS ) = P (XS = 1) = P (AS ) = (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 .
Let X be the number of stable SuperHyperSets of cardinality k + 1 in G. Then 728
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 729
X
E(X) = {E(XS ) : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1} = (n choose k+1)(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 .
We bound the right-hand side by invoking two elementary inequalities: 730
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 731
nk+1 e−p)(k+1)choose2 ne−pk/2k+1

E(X) ≤ =
(k + 1)! (k + 1)!
Suppose now that k = d2p−1 log ne. Then k ≥ 2p−1 log n, so ne−pk/2 ≤ 1. Because k 732
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 733
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 734
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 735
number at most k. 736
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 737
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 739
called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme Variance 740
criteria 741
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let X be an Extreme 743
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 744
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let t be a 746
positive real number. Then 747
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
748
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let Xn be an Extreme 750
Variable in a probability United Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 751
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 752
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 754
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 755
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 756
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set 758
f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 759
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 760
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. As in the proof of related Theorem, the result 762
is straightforward. 763
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let f 765
and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 766
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 767
or 768
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 769
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 771
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 772
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 774
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 775
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 776
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 777
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 778
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 779
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let F be a fixed Extreme SuperHyperGraph. 781
Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a copy of F as an 782
Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 783
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. Let F be a nonempty 785
balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 786
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 787
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 788
S = (V, E) is a probability United Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 790
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 791
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 792
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 793
SuperHyperUnited Dominating, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 794
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 795
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 796
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 797
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 798
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 799
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.3)
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 800
Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 801
C(N SHG)Extreme United Dominating =

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

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

812
straightforward. 815

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

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


820

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

824

{{Ei }17 22
i=12 , {Ei }i=18 }.
= z6 + z5.
{{Vi }6i=1 , {Vi , V21 }10
i=7 }.
= z6 + z5.
828

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

832

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
836

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



840

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
844

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

848

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{V1 , V2 , V3 }, {V7 , V8 }}.
= z3 + z2.
852

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



856

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
860

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


864

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
868

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
872




{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
876

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

880

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
884

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

888

{{E3i+1 }1i=0 {E3i+1 }3i=2 }.
= 2z 2 .
{{V2i+1 }1i=0 {V2i+1 }5i=2 }.
= z4 + z2.
892
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 893
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-United Dominating 894
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 895
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 896
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 897
them. 898
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 899
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 900
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 901
any given Extreme quasi-R-United Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 902
of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 903


SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 904
an Extreme quasi-R-United Dominating, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 905
them but not all of them. 906
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-United Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-United Dominating is at least 907
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 908
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 909
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 910
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme United Dominating in 911
some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the 912
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 913
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-United Dominating. 914
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-United Dominating has, the least Extreme cardinality, the
lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-United Dominating with the least Extreme cardinality, the 915
lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 916
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 917
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 918
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nitedDominating

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nitedDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nitedDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−U nitedDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-United Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower 919
sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-United Dominating is the cardinality 920
of 921

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nitedDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nitedDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−U nitedDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-United Dominating
since neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices
where amount refers to the Extreme number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges)
more than one to form any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of
SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-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 Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-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 922
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 923
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 924
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 925
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 926
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 927
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 928
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 929
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-United Dominating decorates the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this Extreme
style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum
Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The
lower Extreme bound is to have the maximum Extreme groups of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices have perfect Extreme connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges
and the outside of this Extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the
connectedness of the used Extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its Extreme
properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no Extreme
connection. Furthermore, the Extreme existence of one Extreme SuperHyperVertex has
no Extreme effect to talk about the Extreme R-United Dominating. Since at least two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the Extreme background of the
Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The Extreme SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no
Extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least two Extreme SuperHyperVertices make the
Extreme version of Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the Extreme setting of
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as Extreme
adjective for the initial Extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no Extreme
appearance of the loop Extreme version of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge and this
Extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The Extreme adjective “loop” on the
basic Extreme framework engages one Extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never happens
in this Extreme setting. With these Extreme bases, on an Extreme SuperHyperGraph,
there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least an Extreme R-United
Dominating has the Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an
Extreme R-United Dominating has the Extreme cardinality at least an Extreme

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-United Dominating for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used Extreme 930
background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common theme of the 931
lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 932
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 933
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

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

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

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

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

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
935
Extreme R-United Dominating =

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

fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended SuperHyperVertices
but in an Extreme United Dominating, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not
unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If
an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-United Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-United Dominating is at 936
least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 937
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 938
other words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 939
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 940
United Dominating in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge 941
with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 942
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-United Dominating. 943
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 944
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 945
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 946
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 947
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 948
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 949
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 950
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 951
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 952
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 953
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-United Dominating where 954
the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an 955
Extreme embedded R-United Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 956
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 957
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 958
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 959
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less 960
than two distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum 961
Extreme style of the embedded Extreme R-United Dominating. The interior types of the 962
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of 963
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. 964
The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections 965
inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme 966
SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-United Dominating. Thus Extreme exterior 967
SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in 968
Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that 969
Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme United Dominating, there’s the usage 970
of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more 971
than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 972
Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme 973
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has 974
been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme R-United 975
Dominating. The Extreme R-United Dominating with the exclusion of the exclusion of all 976
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, 977
the Extreme R-United Dominating with the inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 978
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme quasi-R-United Dominating. To sum them up, 979
in a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 980
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of 981
the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme 982
quasi-R-United Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not 983
all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge 984
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme 985
quasi-R-United Dominating, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not 986
all of them. 987
The main definition of the Extreme R-United Dominating has two titles. an Extreme 988
quasi-R-United Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 989
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 990
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-United Dominating with that quasi-maximum Extreme 991
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If 992
there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the Extreme 993
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme quasi-R-United 994
Dominatings for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme corresponded maximum 995
number. The essence of the Extreme United Dominating ends up but this essence starts up in 996
the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-United Dominating, again and more in the operations of 997
collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-United Dominatings acted on the all possible used 998
formations of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This 999
Extreme number is 1000
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-United Dominatings. Let 1001
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme United Dominating be an Extreme 1002
number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and an Extreme United Dominating. Then 1003
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme United Dominating ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme United Dominating is re-formalized 1004
and redefined as follows. 1005
GExtreme United Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1006
technical definition for the Extreme United Dominating. 1007
GExtreme United Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1008
United Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1009

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1010

= maxzExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1011


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1012
GExtreme United Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1013

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

1014

= max zExtreme Number

1015


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1016
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1017
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1018
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1019
Quasi-United Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme Quasi-United 1020
Dominating” since “Extreme Quasi-United Dominating” happens “Extreme United Dominating” in an 1021
Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “Extreme 1022
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme United Dominating” in an Extreme 1023
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since there are 1024
some ambiguities about the Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get 1025
orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme 1026
Quasi-United Dominating”, and “Extreme United Dominating” are up. 1027
Thus, let 1028
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1029
GExtreme United Dominating be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1030
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme United Dominating and the new terms are up. 1031
GExtreme United Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1032

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1033

∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1034

And with go back to initial structure, 1035
GExtreme United Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1036

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

1037

= max zExtreme Number

1038


Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1039
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-United Dominating if for any of 1040
them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme 1041
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme 1042
exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1043
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1044
are coming up. 1045
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

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

Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-United Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1046
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1047
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1048
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1049
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1050
Extreme United Dominating is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

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

Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-United Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1051
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1052
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1053
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme United 1054
Dominating and it’s an Extreme United Dominating. Since it’s 1055
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for
some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme United Dominating. There isn’t only less than two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-United Dominating,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme United
Dominating, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1056
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1057
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1058
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1059
“Extreme R-United Dominating” 1060
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1061
Extreme R-United Dominating, 1062
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

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

it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-United Dominating amid those obvious
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme United Dominating, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1063
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-United Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-United Dominating is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1064
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-United Dominating if 1065
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1066
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1067
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1068
them. 1069
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1070
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1071
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1072
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1073
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1074
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-United Dominating with the least 1075
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1076
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1077
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1078
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1079
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-United Dominating. 1080
Since it doesn’t have 1081
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1083
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1084
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1085
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme R-United 1086
Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that there’s an 1087
Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there 1088
are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the 1089
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1090
titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the 1091
Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only 1092
one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1093
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 1094
Extreme R-United Dominating, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1095
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-United Dominating, VESHE , is an Extreme 1096
SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any 1097
kind of Extreme pairs are titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme 1098
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1099
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality 1100
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 1101
Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, 1102
in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-United 1103
Dominating only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1104
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1105
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1106
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1107
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1108
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1109
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, United Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1110
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1111
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1112
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme United Dominating. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1113
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1114

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nitedDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−U nitedDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−U nitedDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme United Dominating. The Extreme 1115
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1116

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme United Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1117
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1118
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1120
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1121
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1122
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1123
non-obvious Extreme United Dominating is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1124
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme United Dominating is an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1125
includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1126
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1127

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1128
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1129
Extreme United Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1130
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1131

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme United Dominating . 1132
Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1133
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1134

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme United Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1135
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1136
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1137
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme United Dominating and it’s 1138
an Extreme United Dominating. Since it’s 1139
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1141
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1142
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1143
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1144

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme United Dominating , 1145

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme United Dominating , 1146
not: 1147

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1148

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1149
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1150
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1151
“Extreme United Dominating ” 1152
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1153
Extreme United Dominating , 1154
is only and only 1155

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1156
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1157
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1158
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1159
SuperHyperClasses. 1160
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1161

|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 1162
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1163
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme Super-

HyperUnited Dominating in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1164
There’s a new way to redefine as 1165
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 1166
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperUnited Dominating. The latter 1167
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1169
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1170
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1171
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1172
Then 1173

|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 1174
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1175
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1176

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1181
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1182
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1183
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1184

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
Proof. Let 1185
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1186
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1187
a new way to redefine as 1188

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1192
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1193
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1194
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1195
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1196
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1197
Then 1198

|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 .
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1199
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
1200
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1201

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Thus the 1205
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperUnited 1206
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Example (16.11)
could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every

Dominating 1207
SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1208
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperUnited Dominating taken from a connected Extreme 1209
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1210
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1211
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1212
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1213
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1214
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1215
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1216
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1217
Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1218
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1219
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1220

|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 1221
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
1222
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1224

is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Thus the 1227
notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperUnited 1228

0
Dominating could be applied. There are only z SuperHyperParts. Thus every 1229
SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1230
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1231
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1232
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Example (16.13)
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1235
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1236
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1237
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1238
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 1239
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1240
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1241
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1242

|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 1243
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1244
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.15)
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1246

is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Thus the notion 1249
of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperUnited Dominating could 1250
be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperUnited Dominating proposes some longest 1251
SuperHyperUnited Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 1252
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1254
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1255
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1256
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1257
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1258
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1259
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1260
For the SuperHyperUnited Dominating, Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating, and the Extreme 1261
SuperHyperUnited Dominating, some general results are introduced. 1262
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating is “redefined” on 1263
the positions of the alphabets. 1264
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Then 1265
Extreme SuperHyperU nitedDominating =

{theSuperHyperU nitedDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperU nitedDominating
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperU nitedDominating. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1266
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1267
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1268
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1269
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating and SuperHyperUnited 1270
Dominating coincide. 1271
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1273
SuperHyperUnited Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1274
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1276
SuperHyperUnited Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1277
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1278
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating is its 1279
SuperHyperUnited Dominating and reversely. 1280
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnited Dominating, 1281
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1282
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating is its 1283
SuperHyperUnited Dominating and reversely. 1284
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1285
SuperHyperUnited Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnited Dominating isn’t 1286
well-defined. 1287
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1288
Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnited 1289
Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1290
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1292
Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1293
SuperHyperUnited Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1294
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1295
SuperHyperUnited Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnited Dominating is 1296
well-defined. 1297
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1298
its Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnited 1299
Dominating is well-defined. 1300
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1302
Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1303
SuperHyperUnited Dominating is well-defined. 1304
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1305
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1306
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1307
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1308
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1309
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1310
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1311
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1312
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1313
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1314
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1315
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1316
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1317
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1318
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1319
independent SuperHyperSet is 1320
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1321
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1322
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1323
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1324
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1325
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1326
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1327
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUnited Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1328
maximal 1329
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1330
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1331
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1332
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1333
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1334
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1335
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1336
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1337
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1338
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1339
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1340
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1341
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1342
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1343
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1344
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1345
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUnited Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the number 1347
of 1348
(i) : the SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1349
(ii) : the SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1350
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1351
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1352
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1353
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1354
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1355
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1356
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1358
(i) : the dual SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1359
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1360
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1361
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1362
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1363
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1364
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1365
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1368
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1369
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1370
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1371
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1375
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1376
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1377
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1380
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1381
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1382
is a 1383
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1387
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1388
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1389
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1392
number of 1393
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1397
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1398
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1399
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1400
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1401
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1402
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1404
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1405
(iv) : SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1409
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1410
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1411
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1412
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1413
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1414
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1415
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1416
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1420
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1422
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1423
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1424
setting of dual 1425
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1429
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1430
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1431
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1433
SuperHyperUnited Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1435
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1436
dual 1437
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1441
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1442
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1443
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1445
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1446
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1447
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1453
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1454
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1455
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1456
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1457
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1458
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1459
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1460
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1461
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1462
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then 1463
(i) S is SuperHyperUnited Dominating set; 1464
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1465
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1466
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1467
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1468
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1469
connected. Then 1470
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1471
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1472
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1473
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1474
SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1475
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1476
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1477
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1478
a dual SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1479
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1480
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1481
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1482
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1483
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1484
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1485
dual SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1486
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Then 1487
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1488
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1490
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1491
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1492
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1493
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperUnited Dominating. Then 1495
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1496
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1498
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1499
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1500
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1502
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1503
(ii) Γ = 1; 1504
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1505
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1506
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1507
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1508
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1509
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1510
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1511
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1512
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1513
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1514
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited 1515
Dominating; 1516
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1517
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1518
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1519
SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1520
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1521
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited 1522
Dominating; 1523
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1524
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 1525
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1526
SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1527
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1528
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1529
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1530
SuperHyperUnited Dominating for N SHF; 1531
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1532
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1533
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperUnited 1534
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1535
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1536
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1537
SuperHyperSet. Then 1538
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1539
SuperHyperUnited Dominating for N SHF; 1540
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1541
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1542
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperUnited 1543
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1544
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1545
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1546
SuperHyperSet. Then 1547
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited 1548
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1549
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1550
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1551
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperUnited Dominating 1552
for N SHF : (V, E). 1553
following statements hold; 1555
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1556
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then S is an 1557
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1558
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1559
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then S is a dual 1560
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1561
following statements hold; 1563
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1564
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then S is an 1565
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1566
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1567
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating, then S is a dual 1568
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1569
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1570
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1571
hold; 1572
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1573
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1574
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c

+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1575
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1577
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1579
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1580
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1581
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1582
hold; 1583
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1584
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1586
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1588
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1590
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1591
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1593
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1594
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1595
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1597
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1599
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1602
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1604
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1605
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1606
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1608
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1610
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating; 1611
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1613
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperUnited 1615
Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1616
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1617
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1619
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1621
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1624
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperUnited 1626
Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1627
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1628
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1630
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1632
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1635
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1636
Recognition 1637
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1638
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1639
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1640
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1641
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1642
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1643
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1644
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1645
long-term Extreme function. 1646
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1647
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1648
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1649
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1650
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1651
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1652
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1653
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1654
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1655
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1656
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1657
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnited Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 1658
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1659
find either the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating or the Extreme 1660
SuperHyperUnited Dominating in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1661
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1662
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1663
SuperHyperModel 1664
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1665
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1666
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1667
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1668
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1669
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1670
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1671
the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1672
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1673
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1674
SuperHyperModel 1675
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1676
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1677
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

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

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1678
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1679
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1680
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1682
is the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating. 1683
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1684
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1685
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1686
The SuperHyperUnited Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating are 1687
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1688
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1689
recognitions? 1690
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperUnited Dominating 1691
and the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating? 1692
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1693
compute them? 1694
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1695
SuperHyperUnited Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating? 1696
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperUnited Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating 1697
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on 1698
SuperHyperUnited Dominating, are there else? 1699
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1700
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1701
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1702
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1703
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1704
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1705
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1706
highlighted. 1707
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1708
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1709
SuperHyperUnited Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of 1710
the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 1711
the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 1712
Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating, finds the convenient background to implement some 1713
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1714
are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks 1715
of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s 1716
Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUnited 1717
Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some 1718
general results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperUnited Dominating and the 1719
Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews 1720
have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled 1721
the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 1722
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both 1723
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on 1724
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 1725
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the 1726
moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design 1727
and the architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperUnited Dominating” in the themes of 1728
jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded 1729
styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6),
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperUnited Dominating
3. Extreme SuperHyperUnited Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1730
benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1731
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1732
Forms 1734
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1735
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1736
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1737
V 0 or E 0 is called 1738
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1739
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1740
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1741
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1742
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1743
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1744
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1745
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1746
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1747
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1748
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1749
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1750
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1752
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1753
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1754
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1755
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1756
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1757
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1758
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1760
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1761
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1762
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1763
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1764
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1765
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1766
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1767
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1768
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1769
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1771
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 1772
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1773
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1774
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1776
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1778
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1788
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1793
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1795
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1796
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1800
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1802
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1803
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1804
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1808
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1809
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1813
Extreme coefficient. 1822
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1826
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1827
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1828
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1829
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1830
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1832
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1920
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Emini |Pi ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) | , Vmin i |Pi
ESHG:(V,E) ∈P ESHG:(V,E) |+1

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperDuality. Thus the notion of quasi 1925
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1926
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1927
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1928
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1929
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1930
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1938

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

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

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

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

∃!Ez∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
∗
, ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL ∈ Ez∗ ≡
∃!Ez∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
∗
, {ViEXT ERN AL , VjEXT ERN AL } ⊆ Ez∗ .
The unique embedded SuperHyperDuality proposes some longest SuperHyperDuality 1969
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1970
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 1972
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1973
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1975
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 1976
Forms 1978
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 1979
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E , ∃Ej ∈ E , such that 1983
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 1984
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1985
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1986
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1987
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1988
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 1989
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 1990
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 1991
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1992
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 1993
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 1994
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 1995
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 1998
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 1999
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2000
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2001
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2002
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2003
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2004
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2005
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2007
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2011
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2012
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2013
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2014
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2020
coefficient; 2021
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2022
coefficient; 2031
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2032
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2036
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2037
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2038
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2039
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2043
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2045
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2046
coefficient; 2055
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2056
coefficient. 2065
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2069
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2070
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2075
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2163
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2168
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2169
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2170
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2172
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2181

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2406
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2411
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2412
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2413
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2414
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2415
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2424

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

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

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

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

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2453
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2454
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2455
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2456
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2461
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2462
Forms 2464
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2465
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2469
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2470
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2471
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2472
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2473
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2474
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2475
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2476
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2477
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2478
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2479
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2480
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2483
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2485
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2489
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2490
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2492
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2496
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2497
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2498
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2499
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2505
coefficient; 2506
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2507
coefficient; 2516
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2517
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2521
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2522
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2523
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2524
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2528
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2530
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2531
coefficient; 2540
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2541
coefficient. 2550
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2554
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2560
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2958

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2962
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2963
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2964
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2965
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2971
17 Background 2972
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2973
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 2974
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 2975
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 2976
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 2977
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 2978
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 2979
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 2980
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 2981
1 with pages 32-55. 2982
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 2983
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 2984
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 2985
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2986
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 2987
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 2988
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 2989
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 2990
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 2991
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 2992
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 2993
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 2994
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 2995
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 2996
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 2997
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 2998
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 2999
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3000
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3001
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3002
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3003
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3004
SuperHyperNumbers. 3005
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3006
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3007
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3008
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3009
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3010
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3011
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3012
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3013
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3014
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3015
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3016
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3017
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3018
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3019
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3020
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3021
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3022
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3023
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3024
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3025
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3026
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3027
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3028
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3029
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3030
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3031
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3032
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3033
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3034
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3035
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3036
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3037
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3038
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3039
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3040
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3041
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3042
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3043
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3044
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3045
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3046
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3047
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3048
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3049
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3050
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3051
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3052
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3053
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3054
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3055
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3056
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3057
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3058
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3059
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3060
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3061
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3062
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3063
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3064
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3065
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3066
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3067
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3068
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3069
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3070
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3071
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3072
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3073
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3074
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3075
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3076
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3077
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3078
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3079
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3080
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3081
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [174] by Henry 3082
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3083
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3084
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [175] by Henry Garrett 3085
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3086
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3087
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [176] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3088
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3089
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3090
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [177] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3091
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3092
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [180] by 3093
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3094
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3095
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [181] by Henry 3096
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3097
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3098
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [184] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3099
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3100
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [187] by Henry 3101
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3102
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3103
in Ref. [188] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3104
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3105
Ref. [189] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3106
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3107
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [190] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3108
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3109
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [191] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3110
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3111
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [192] by Henry Garrett 3112
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3113
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [203] by Henry 3114
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3115
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3116
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [204] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [?, 4–204], there 3117
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3118
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3119
at [205–320]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3120
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [321, 322]. 3121
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3122
proposed as book in Ref. [321] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3123
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3124
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3125
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3126
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3127
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3128
proposed as book in Ref. [322] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3129
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3130
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3131
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3132
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3133
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3134
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3135
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3136
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3137
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3138
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [?, 4–204] 3139
alongside scientific research books at [205–320]. Two popular scientific research books 3140
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic 3141
science is on [321, 322]. 3142
References 3143
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3144
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Current Trends in Mass 3145
Communication 2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open- 3146
access-articles/new-ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super- 3147
hypergraph-as-hyper-tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3148
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3149
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3150
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3151
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3152
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3153
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3154
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3155
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3156
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3157
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3158
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3159
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3160
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3161
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3162
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. 3163
(https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/neutrosophic-codegree- 3164
and-neutrosophic-degree-alongside-chromatic-numbers-in-the-setting-of-some- 3165
classes-related-to-neut.pdf) 3166
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3167
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3168
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3169
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3170
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3171
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3172
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3173
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3174
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3175
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3176
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3177
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3178
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3179
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3180
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3181
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3182
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3183
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3184
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3185
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3186
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3187
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3188
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3189
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3190
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3191
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3192
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3193
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3194
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3195
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3196
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3197
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3198
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3199
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3200
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3201
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3202
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3203
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3204
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3205
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3206
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3207
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3208
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3209
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3210
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3211
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3212
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3213
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3214
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3215
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3216
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3217
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3218
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3219
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3220
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3221
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3222
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3223
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3224
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3225
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3227
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3231
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3232
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3233
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3234
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3235
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3236
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3237
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3238
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3239
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3240
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3241
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3242
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3243
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3244
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3245
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3246
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3247
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3248
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3249
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3250
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3252
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3253
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3254
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3255
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3256
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3258
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3259
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3260
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3261
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3262
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3264
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7940830). 3265
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3266
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3267
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943578). 3268
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3270
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3271
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3272
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3274
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3276
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3277
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3278
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3279
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3282
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3283
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3284
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3285
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3286
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3287
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3288
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3290
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3291
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3293
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3296
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3299
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3302
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3303
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3305
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3308
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3310
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3311
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3314
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3317
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3320
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3321
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3323
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3326
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3327
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3329
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3332
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3335
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3338
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3341
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3344
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3345
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3347
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3348
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3350
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3351
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3353
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3356
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3359
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3360
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3362
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3365
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3366
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3367
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3369
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3370
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3372
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3373
66. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3374
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3375
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3378
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3381
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3382
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3384
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3385
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3387
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3390
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3393
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3396
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3399
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3402
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3405
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3408
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3411
79. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3413
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3414
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3415
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3417
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3420
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3421
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3422
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3424
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3426
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3429
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3432
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3433
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3435
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3436
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3438
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3439
88. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3440
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3441
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3442
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3444
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3447
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3450
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3451
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3453
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3456
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3458
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3460
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3462
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3464
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3465
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3468
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3470
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3471
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3474
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3476
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3478
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3480
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3482
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3483
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3486
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3487
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3489
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3492
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3494
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3496
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3498
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3499
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3501
109. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3503
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3505
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3507
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3508
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3509
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3510
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3511
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3513
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3514
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3515
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3516
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3519
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3521
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3522
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3525
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3527
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3528
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3531
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3533
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3535
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3537
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3538
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3539
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3540
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3543
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3544
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3545
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3546
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3549
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3550
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3551
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3552
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3555
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3556
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3557
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3558
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3561
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3562
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3563
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3564
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3567
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3568
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3569
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3570
132. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3572
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3573
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3576
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3577
134. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3578
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3579
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3582
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3583
136. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3584
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3585
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3588
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3590
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3591
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3594
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3596
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3597
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3599
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3600
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3603
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3606
144. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3608
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3609
145. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3611
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3612
146. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3614
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3615
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3616
147. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3617
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3618
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3619
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3620
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3621
149. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3623
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3624
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3625
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3626
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3627
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3628
151. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3629
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3630
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3631
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3632
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3635
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3636
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3639
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3640
154. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3641
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3643
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3644
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3647
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3648
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3651
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3652
157. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3653
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3654
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3655
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3656
158. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3657
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3658
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3659
159. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3660
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3661
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3662
160. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3663
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3664
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3665
161. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3666
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3667
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3668
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3669
162. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3670
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3671
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3672
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3673
163. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3674
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3675
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3676
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3677
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3678
164. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3679
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3680
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3681
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3682
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3683
165. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3684
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3685
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3686
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3687
166. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3688
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3689
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3690
167. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3691
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3692
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3694
168. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3695
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3696
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3697
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3698
169. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3699
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3700
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3701
170. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3702
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3703
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3704
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3705
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3706
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3707
171. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3708
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3709
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3710
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3711
172. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3712
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3713
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3714
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3715
173. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3716
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3717
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3718
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3719
174. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3720
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3721
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3722
175. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3723
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3724
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3725
176. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3727
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3728
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3729
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3730
177. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3731
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3732
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3733
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3734
178. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3735
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3736
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3737
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3738
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3740
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3741
180. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3742
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3743
181. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3745
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3746
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3747
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3752
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3756
184. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3757
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3758
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3759
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3760
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3763
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3765
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3766
187. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3767
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3768
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3771
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3772
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3774
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3775
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3778
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3779
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3781
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3782
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3785
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3786
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3788
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3789
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3791
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3796
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3797
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3801
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3802
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3805
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3808
199. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3809
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3810
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3811
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3812
200. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3813
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3814
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3815
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3816
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3819
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3820
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3823
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3824
203. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3825
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3826
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3827
204. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3828
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3829
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3830
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3831
205. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3832
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 3833
206. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3834
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 3835
207. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3836
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 3837
208. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3838
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 3839
209. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3840
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 3841
210. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3842
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7905287). 3843
211. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3844
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 3845
212. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3846
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7874677). 3847
213. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3848
214. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3850
215. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3852
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 3853
216. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3854
217. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3856
218. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3858
219. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3860
220. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3862
221. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3864
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3865
222. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3866
223. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3868
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3869
224. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3870
225. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3872
226. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3874
227. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3876
228. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3878
229. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3880
230. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3882
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3883
231. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3884
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3885
232. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3886
233. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3888
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3889
234. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3890
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3891
235. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3892
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3893
236. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3894
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 3895
237. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3896
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3897
238. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3898
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3899
239. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3900
240. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3902
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3903
241. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3904
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3905
242. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3906
243. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3908
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3909
244. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3910
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3911
245. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3912
246. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3914
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3915
247. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3916
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3917
248. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3918
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3919
249. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3920
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3921
250. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3922
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 3923
251. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3924
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3925
252. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3926
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3927
253. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3928
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3929
254. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3930
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3931
255. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3932
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3933
256. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3934
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3935
257. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3936
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3937
258. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3938
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3939
259. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3940
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3941
260. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3942
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3943
261. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3944
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3945
262. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3946
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3947
263. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3948
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3949
264. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3950
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3951
265. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3952
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3953
266. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3954
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3955
267. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3956
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3957
268. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3958
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3959
269. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3960
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3961
270. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3962
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3963
271. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3964
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3965
272. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3966
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3967
273. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3968
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3969
274. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3970
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3971
275. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3972
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3973
276. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3974
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3975
277. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3976
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3977
278. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3978
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3979
279. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3980
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3981
280. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3982
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3983
281. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3984
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 3985
282. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3986
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 3987
283. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3988
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 3989
284. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3990
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3991
285. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3992
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3993
286. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3994
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 3995
287. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3996
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 3997
288. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3998
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 3999
289. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4000
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4001
290. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4002
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4003
291. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4004
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4005
292. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4006
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4007
293. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4008
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4009
294. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4010
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4011
295. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4012
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4013
296. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4014
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4015
297. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4016
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4017
298. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4018
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4019
299. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4020
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4021
300. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4022
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4023
301. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4024
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4025
302. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4026
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4027
303. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4028
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4029
304. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4030
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4031
305. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4032
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4033
306. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4034
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4035
307. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4036
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4037
308. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4038
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4039
309. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4040
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4041
310. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4042
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4043
311. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4044
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4045
312. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4046
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4047
313. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4048
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4049
314. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4050
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4051
315. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4052
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4053
316. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4054
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4055
317. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4056
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4057
318. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4058
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4059
319. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4060
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4061
320. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4062
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4063
321. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4064
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4065
322. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4066
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4067
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Units by Hyper Ultra of United Dominating in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super Units by Hyper Ultra of United Dominating in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United Dominating In Recognition

Preprint · June 2023

485 PUBLICATIONS 18,561 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic Graphs View project

On Fuzzy Logic View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 2

Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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