New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super Con

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371667103
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super Con
Preprint · June 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
487 PUBLICATIONS 18,920 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
On Fuzzy Logic View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 17 June 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper 3
Conceit On Super Con 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
SuperHyperConnective Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 10
a Connective 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-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 14
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 : ∃Vc ∈ VN SHG , Vc ∈ Ea , Eb

And∀Ea ∈ EN SHG : Ea is Neutrosophic connective;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 16

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 17
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is called 18
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 19
∀Va , ∃Vb ∈ V 0 : ∃Ed ∈ EN SHG , Va , Vc ∈ Ed

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 21

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, 23
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective 24
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) 25
SuperHyperConnective Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 26
a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 27
E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s 28
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic 29
re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and 30
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 31
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 32
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 33
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 34
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating; a 35
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 36
e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, 37
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective 38
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 39
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 40
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 41
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they 42
form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperConnective 43
Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective 44
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic 45
v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and 46
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 47
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 48
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 49
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 50
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 51
SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 52
coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 53
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 56
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 57
the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 58
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 59
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 60
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 61
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded 62
to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either 63
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective 64
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and Neutrosophic 65
rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 66
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S 67
of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive 68
Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 69
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating; a Neutrosophic 70
V-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective 71
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic 72
v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and 73
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 74
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 75
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating; an Extreme V-SuperHyperConnective Dominating 78
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, 79
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective 80
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an 81
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 82
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 83
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet 84
S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 85
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and 86
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 87
SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 88
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective 90
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 91
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 92
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 93
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 94
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 95
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 96
and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this 97
scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 98
SuperHyperConnective Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Two 99
different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes 100
further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 101
on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 102
whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 103
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 104
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 105
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 106
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 107
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 108
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 109
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 110
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 111
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 112
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 113
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 114
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 115
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 116
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 117
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 118
δ−SuperHyperConnective Dominating is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 119
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) 120
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 121
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 122
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 123
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnective Dominating is a 124
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 125
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 126
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 127
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 128
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 129
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 130
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 131
version of a SuperHyperConnective Dominating . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 132
make a SuperHyperConnective Dominating more understandable. For the sake of having 133
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 134
“SuperHyperConnective Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 135
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 136
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperConnective 137
Dominating . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the mentioned 138
Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, 139
and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key 140
points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The 141
Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 142
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 143
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 144
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 145
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 146
SuperHyperConnective Dominating . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation 147
of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all 148
SuperHyperConnective Dominating until the SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then it’s officially 149
called a “SuperHyperConnective Dominating” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperConnective 150
Dominating . There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition 151
titled a “SuperHyperConnective Dominating ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and 152
discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 153
SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperConnective Dominating . For the sake of having a 154
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 155
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective 156
Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the 157
labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 158
position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 159
It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a 160
SuperHyperConnective Dominating are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective 161
Dominating” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of 162
SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a 163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating more understandable. Assume a 164
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if 165
the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperConnective Dominating, 166
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 167
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 168
SuperHyperConnective Dominating”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 169
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 170
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 171
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating” where it’s the strongest [the maximum 172
Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperConnective Dominating amid the maximum value 173
amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperConnective Dominating .] SuperHyperConnective 174
Dominating . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number 175
of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic 176
SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 177
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two 178
exceptions; it’s SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 179
amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as 180
intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one 181
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 182
forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 183
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 184
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no 185
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as 186
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one 187
SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the 188
specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 189
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, 190
The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 191
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells 192
and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. 193
Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and 194
neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the 195
SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will 196
be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 197
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 198
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 199
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 200
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 201
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 202
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 203
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 204
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 205
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 206
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 207
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 208
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 209
either the longest SuperHyperConnective Dominating or the strongest SuperHyperConnective 210
Dominating in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperConnective 211
Dominating, called SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and the strongest SuperHyperConnective 212
Dominating, called Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, some general results are 213
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only 214
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 215
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperConnective Dominating. There isn’t any 216
formation of any SuperHyperConnective Dominating but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 217
SuperHyperConnective Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic 218
familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating theory, SuperHyperGraphs, 219
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 220
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperConnective Dominating, 221
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 222
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 223
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 224
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 225
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 226
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 227
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 228
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 229
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 230
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 231
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 232
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 233
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 234
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 235
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 236
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 237
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 238
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 239
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 240
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 241
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 242
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 243
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 244
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 245
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 246
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 247
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 248
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 249
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 250
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 251
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 252
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 253
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 254
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 255
formally called “ SuperHyperConnective Dominating” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 256
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 257
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 258
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 259
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 260
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 261
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 262
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 263
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 264
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 265
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 266
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 267
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperConnective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 268
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 269
either the optimal SuperHyperConnective Dominating or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective 270
Dominating in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. 271
Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only 272
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 273
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperConnective Dominating. There isn’t any 274
formation of any SuperHyperConnective Dominating but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 275
SuperHyperConnective Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 276
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 277
find the “ amount of SuperHyperConnective Dominating” of either individual of cells or the 278
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 279
of SuperHyperConnective Dominating” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 280
group of cells? 281
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 282
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 283
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 284
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 285
SuperHyperConnective Dominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating” on 286
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 287
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 288
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 289
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 290
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 291
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 292
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 293
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 294
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 295
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 296
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 297
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 298
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperConnective Dominating 299
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, are figured out in sections “ 300
SuperHyperConnective Dominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating”. In the 301
sense of tackling on getting results and in Connective Dominating to make sense about 302
continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 303
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 304
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 305
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going 306
back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 307
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 308
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 309
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 310
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 311
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 312
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 313
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperConnective Dominating”, 314
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 315
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 316
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 317
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 318
presented in section, “ SuperHyperConnective Dominating”. The keyword of this research 319
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 320
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 321
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 322
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 323
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 324
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 325
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 326
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 327
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 328
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 329
Research On the Redeemed Ways 330
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 331
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 332
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.5,p.2), 333
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 334
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 335
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 336
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [1],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 337
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 338
(Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 339
to Ref. [206]. 340
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 341
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 342
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.1,p.1). 343
Let X be a Connective 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 344
+
]− 0, 1 [. 345
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2). 346
Let X be a Connective 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 347
2.5,p.2). 348
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 349
pair S = (V, E), where 350
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 351
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 352
1, 2, . . . , n); 353
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 354
V; 355
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 356
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 357
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 358
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 359
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 360
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ); 361
(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 . 362
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 363
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 364
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 365
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 366
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 367
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 368
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 369
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 370
the ii0 th element of the Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 371
(NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 372
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 373
(Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3). 374
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 375
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 376
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 377
characterized as follow-up items. 378
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 379
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 380
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 381
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 382
HyperEdge; 383
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 384
SuperEdge; 385
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 386
SuperHyperEdge. 387
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 388
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 389
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3). 390
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 391
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 392
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 393
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 394
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 395
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 396
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)). 397
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 398
pair S = (V, E), where 399
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 400
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 401
1, 2, . . . , n); 402
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 403
V; 404
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 405
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 406
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 407
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 408
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 409
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 410
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 411
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 412
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 413
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 414
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 415
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 416
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 417
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 418
the ii0 th element of the Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 419
(NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 420
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 421
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 423
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 424
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 425
characterized as follow-up items. 426
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 427
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 428
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 429
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 430
HyperEdge; 431
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 432
SuperEdge; 433
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 434
SuperHyperEdge. 435
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 436
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 437
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 438
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 439
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 440
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 441
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 442
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 443
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 444
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 445
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 446
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 447
given SuperHyperEdges; 448
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 449
SuperHyperEdges; 450
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 451
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 452
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 453
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 454
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 455
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 456
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 457
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 458
common SuperVertex. 459
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 460
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 461
of following conditions hold: 462
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 463
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 464
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 465
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 466
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 467
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 468
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 469
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 470
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 471
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 472
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 473
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. 474
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 475
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 476
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 477
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 478
SuperHyperPath . 479
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 480
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 482
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 483
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 484
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 485
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 486
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 487
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 488
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 489
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 490
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 491
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 492
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 493
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 494
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 495
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 497
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 498
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 500
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 501
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 502
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 503
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective 504
Dominating). 505
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 507
either V 0 or E 0 is called 508
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is 509
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 510

(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is 511
called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 512

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 513
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is 514
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 515

(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is 516
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 517

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 518
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 519
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and Neutrosophic 521
rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 522
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnective Dominating). 523
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 526
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 530
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 531
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 532
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnective 533
Dominating; 534
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 535
rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 538
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 539
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 540
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 541
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 542
SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 543
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 544
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 548
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 550
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 551
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 552
Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 553
its Extreme coefficient; 554
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if 555
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic 556
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 559
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 560
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 563
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Neutrosophic 564
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 565
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 566
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 570
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 571
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 572
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnective 573
Dominating; 574
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 575
rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 578
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 579
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 580
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if 584
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 590
Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 593
its Extreme coefficient; 594
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if 595
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 601
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Neutrosophic 604
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 605
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperConnective Dominating). 606
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 607
(i) an δ−SuperHyperConnective Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 608
SuperHyperConnective Dominating such that either of the following expressions hold for 609
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 610
|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 611
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 612
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnective Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of 613
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating such that either of the following 614
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 615
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 616
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
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)
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 617
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 618
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 619
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, there’s a need to 620
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 621
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 622
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 623
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 624
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 625
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 626
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 627
understandable. 628
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 629
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 630
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperConnective Dominating, 631
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 632
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 633
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 634
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 635
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 636
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective 637
Dominating. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic 638
SuperHyperConnective Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 639
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, there’s a need to 640
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating”. 641
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 642
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 643
assign to the values. 644
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperConnective Dominating. It’s redefined a 645
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 646

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But As Connective Dominating 647
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 648
Forms 649
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 650
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V is 652
called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 653
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 654
probability of A. 655
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 656
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 658
Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 659
s-independent criteria 660
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 661
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 662
criteria 663
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 664
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Any k-function Connective Dominating like E is 666
called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Connective Dominating like 667
E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 668
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 669
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 670
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 672
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 673
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 674
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 675
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. A Neutrosophic number is called 677
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 678
Crossing criteria 679
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 680
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let m and n propose 681
special Connective Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 682
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 683
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 684
Neutrosophic independently with probability Connective Dominating p := 4n/m, and set 685
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 686
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 687
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
688
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 689
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let P be a 690
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 691
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 692
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 693
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 694
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points 695
on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 696
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 697
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 698
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 699
2 3
again l < 32n /k . 700
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let P be a 702
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 703
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 704
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 705
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 706
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 707
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 708
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
709
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 710
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on 711
the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 712
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 713
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 714
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 715
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 716
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 717
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 718
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 719
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 720
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let X be a nonnegative 721
Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 722
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. 723
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 724
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let Xn be a 725
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Connective Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 726
E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 727
Proof. 728
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. A special 730
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 731
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph in 733
Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 734
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 735
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 736
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 737
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 738
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 739
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 740
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 741
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 742
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: 743
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 744
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 745
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 746
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 747
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 748
stability number at most k. 749
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 750
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 752
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 753
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 754
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let X be a 756
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 757
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let X be a Neutrosophic 759
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 760
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
761
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let Xn be a 763
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Connective Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 764
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 765
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| 767
in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 768
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 769
when Xn = 0. 770
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 772
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 773
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 774
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 775
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. As in the proof of related 777
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 778
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let 780
f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 781
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 782
or 783
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 784
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 786
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 787
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 789
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 790
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 791
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 792
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 793
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 794
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 796
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 797
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 798
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let F be a nonempty 800
balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 801
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 802
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 803
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 805
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 806
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 807
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 808
SuperHyperConnective Dominating, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 809
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 810
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 811
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 812
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 813
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 814
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 815
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 816
SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 817
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Connective Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Connective Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
818
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 821
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 822
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 823
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 824
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 825
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 826

excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 827

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
828
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 831

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
832



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


{E2 }.
= z 6−c .
{V5 }.
= z 7−c .
840

{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
844


{E15 , E16 , E17 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
848

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .



852

{E3i+1 , E23 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 , V11 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
856

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)
860

{E1 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 , V6 }.
= z 5−a .
864

(16.3)

{E1 }.
= z 5−a .
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }.
= z 5−a .
868

{E9 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 , V6 }.
= z 5−a .
872

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .
876

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
880

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 }.
= z 2−a .
884

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
888

{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
892

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }3i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2i+1 }5i=0 .
= z 2−a .
896

{E6 }.
= z 4−a .
{V1 }.
= z 6−a .
900

(16.3)

{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .
904

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .
908
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 909
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 910
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 911
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 912
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 913
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 914
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 915
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 916
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 917
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominating minus all Neutrosophic 918
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 919
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 920
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominating, minus all 921
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 922
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic

R-Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Connective 923
Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 924
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 925
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 926
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 927
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Connective Dominating in some 928
cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum 929
Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic 930
SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating. 931
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Connective Dominating has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Connective Dominating with the least Neutrosophic 932
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 933
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 934
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 935
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−ConnectiveDominating

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−ConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−ConnectiveDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−ConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the 936
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Connective Dominating is the 937
cardinality of 938

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

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Connective
Dominating since neither amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor amount of
SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of

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

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

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

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

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Connective 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 939
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 940
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 941
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 942
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 943
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 944
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 945
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 946
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating decorates the

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Neutrosophic connections so
as this Neutrosophic style implies different versions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
with the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Neutrosophic bound is to have the
maximum Neutrosophic groups of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have perfect
Neutrosophic connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the

used Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its Neutrosophic properties taken
from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, then there’s no
Neutrosophic connection. Furthermore, the Neutrosophic existence of one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has no Neutrosophic effect to talk about the Neutrosophic R-Connective
Dominating. Since at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in
the Neutrosophic background of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The Neutrosophic

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

SuperHyperSet has only some amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Neutrosophic amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The Neutrosophic cardinality of this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the Neutrosophic case is occurred in the minimum
Neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that
Contains some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used 947
Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case and the 948
common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific Neutrosophic 949
SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are Neutrosophic 950
free-quasi-triangle. 951
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has at least no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in
common. Thus those Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be
contained in a Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating. Those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Neutrosophic style-R-Connective Dominating.
Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating but
with slightly differences in the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality amid those
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|Neutrosophic cardinality ,

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

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 952
Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
953
Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating =

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Connective Dominating,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Connective 954
Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 955
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 956
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 957
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 958
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Connective Dominating in 959
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 960
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 961
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating. 962
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 963
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 964
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 965
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 966
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 967
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 968
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 969
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 970
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 971
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 972
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 973
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominating where the 974
Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, 975
a Neutrosophic embedded R-Connective Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded 976
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of 977
SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the 978
embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum 979
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. 980
The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are included in the 981
minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating. The 982
interior types of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the 983
Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior 984
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more 985
formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any 986
distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Connective 987
Dominating. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one 988
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the 989
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In 990
the embedded Neutrosophic Connective Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior Neutrosophic 991
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 992
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Neutrosophic 993
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 994
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in 995
the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating. 996
The Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating with the exclusion of the exclusion of all 997
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and with other 998
terms, the Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating with the inclusion of all Neutrosophic 999
SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic 1000
quasi-R-Connective Dominating. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic 1001
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1002
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior 1003
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective 1004
Dominating minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of 1005
them. In other words, there’s only an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1006
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an 1007
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominating, minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to 1008
some of them but not all of them. 1009
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating has two titles. a 1010
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1011
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1012
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominating with that 1013
quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 1014
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1015
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1016
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominatings for all Neutrosophic 1017
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1018
Neutrosophic Connective Dominating ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1019
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominating, again and more in the operations of collecting 1020
all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominatings acted on the all possible used formations 1021
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic number. This 1022
Neutrosophic number is 1023
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Connective Dominatings. 1024
Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and GNeutrosophic Connective Dominating be 1025
a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Connective 1026
Dominating. Then 1027
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Connective Dominating ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Connective Dominating is 1028
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1029
GNeutrosophic Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number
{SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1030
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Connective Dominating. 1031
GNeutrosophic Connective Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1032
Connective Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1033

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1034

= max zNeutrosophic Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1035


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1036
GNeutrosophic Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =


1037

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

1038


1039


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1040
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1041
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1042
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1043
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Connective Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the 1044
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Connective Dominating” since “Neutrosophic 1045
Quasi-Connective Dominating” happens “Neutrosophic Connective Dominating” in a Neutrosophic 1046
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “Neutrosophic 1047
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic Connective Dominating” in a 1048
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background 1049
since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise 1050
from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, 1051
“Neutrosophic Quasi-Connective Dominating”, and “Neutrosophic Connective Dominating” are up. 1052
Thus, let 1053
zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1054
GNeutrosophic Connective Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1055
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Connective Dominating and the new terms are 1056
up. 1057
GNeutrosophic Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1058

{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1059

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1060

And with go back to initial structure, 1061
GNeutrosophic Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =


1062

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1063


1064


Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1065
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-Connective Dominating 1066
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1067
some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic 1068
SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic 1069
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1070
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1071
are coming up. 1072
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1073
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1074
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1075
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic 1076
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1077
Neutrosophic Connective Dominating is related to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Connective Dominating is
up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic

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

R-Connective Dominating. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1078
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1079
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1080
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1081
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Connective Dominating and it’s an Neutrosophic 1082
Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1083
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Connective Dominating, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1084
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1085
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1086
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1087
“Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating” 1088
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1089
Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating, 1090
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating amid those
obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic Connective Dominating,
are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1091
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower
sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating is the cardinality
of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1092
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1093
quasi-R-Connective Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1094
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1095
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1096
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1097
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1098
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1099
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1100
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1101
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1102
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1103
Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1104
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1105
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1106
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1107
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1108
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1109
R-Connective Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1110
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1112
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1113
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1114
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1115
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1116
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1117
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1118
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1119
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1120
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1121
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1122
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1123
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1124
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating, VESHE is up. The obvious simple 1125
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating, VESHE , is a 1126
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1127
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1128
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1129
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1130
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1131
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1132
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1133
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1134
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1135
Neutrosophic R-Connective Dominating only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1136
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1137
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1138
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1139
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1140
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1141
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1142
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Connective Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1143
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1144
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1145
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Connective Dominating. The 1146
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1147

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−ConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−ConnectiveDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−ConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Connective Dominating . 1148
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1149
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1150

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1151
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1152
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1154
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1155
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1156
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Connective Dominating is 1158
up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1159
Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two Neutrosophic 1160
SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1161

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1163
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1164
Neutrosophic Connective Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1165
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1166

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1167
Connective Dominating. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1168

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1170
ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic 1171
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 1172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1173
called the Neutrosophic Connective Dominating and it’s an Neutrosophic Connective Dominating. 1174
Since it’s 1175
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1177
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1178
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1179
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1180
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1181

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Connective Dominating , 1182

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1183
Connective Dominating , not: 1184

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1185

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1186
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1187
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1188
“Neutrosophic Connective Dominating ” 1189
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1190
Neutrosophic Connective Dominating , 1191
is only and only 1192

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1193
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1194
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1195
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1196
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1197
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1198
Then 1199

|E |
{E3i+2 }i=0ESHP .
| min |E | |Ei |
{E3i+2 } ESHP
=z i=0 .
EXT ERN AL |E |
{V2i+2 }i=0ESHP .
| min |E | |Vi |
{V EXT ERN AL } ESHP
=z 2i+2 i=0 .
Proof. Let 1200
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1201
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1202
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1203
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 1204
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnective Dominating. The 1205
latter is straightforward. 1206
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1207
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1208
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1209
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1210
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Example (16.5)
Then 1211

|E |
{E3i+2 }i=0ESHP .
| min |E | |Ei |
{E3i+2 } ESHP
=z i=0 .
EXT ERN AL |E |
{V2i+2 }i=0ESHP .
| min |E | |Vi |
=z 2i+2 i=0 .
Proof. Let 1212
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1213
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1214
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1215

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1219
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1220
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1221
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1223
Then 1224

{Ei }.
= z |Ei | .
{CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1225
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1226
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1227
There’s a new way to redefine as 1228

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1232
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1233
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1234
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1235
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective 1236
Dominating. 1237
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1238
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1239

|P min |
{E3i+2 }i=0
ESHP
.
| min |E | |Ei |
{P min } ESHP
=z 3i+2 i=0 .
EXT ERN AL |P min |
{V2i+2 }i=0
ESHP
.
| min |P min |
|Vi |
=z 2i+2 i=0 .
Proof. Let 1240
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
1241
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1242
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1243

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1246
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1247
SuperHyperConnective Dominating could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1248
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1249
the 1250
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnective Dominating taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1251
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1252
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Example (16.11)
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1253
solution 1254
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1255
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1256
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1257
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1258
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1259
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1260
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1261
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1262
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1263

|P min |
{E3i+2 }i=0
ESHP
.
| min |E | |Ei |
{P min } ESHP
=z 3i+2 i=0 .
EXT ERN AL |P min |
{V2i+2 }i=0
ESHP
.
| min |P min |
|Vi |
=z 2i+2 i=0 .
Proof. Let 1264
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
1265
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1267

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1270
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1271
SuperHyperConnective Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1272
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1273
the 1274
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1275
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1276
solution 1278
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1280
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1281
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1282
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1283
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1284
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1285
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1286
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Example (16.13)
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1287
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1288

{Ei }.
= z |Ei | .
{CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1289
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1290
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1292

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

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Thus 1295
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnective 1296
Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnective Dominating proposes 1297
some longest SuperHyperConnective Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter 1298
is straightforward. 1299
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1301
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1302
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1303
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1304
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1306
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1307
For the SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and 1308
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, some general results are introduced. 1309
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating is 1310
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1311
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Then 1312
N eutrosophic SuperHyperConnectiveDominating =
{theSuperHyperConnectiveDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperConnectiveDominating
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperConnectiveDominating. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1313
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1314
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1315
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1316
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating and 1317
SuperHyperConnective Dominating coincide. 1318
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1320
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1321
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1323
SuperHyperConnective Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1324
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1325
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating is 1326
its SuperHyperConnective Dominating and reversely. 1327
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnective Dominating, 1328
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1329
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective 1330
Dominating is its SuperHyperConnective Dominating and reversely. 1331
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1332
SuperHyperConnective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnective Dominating 1333
isn’t well-defined. 1334
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1335
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1336
SuperHyperConnective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1337
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1339
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1340
SuperHyperConnective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1341
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1342
SuperHyperConnective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnective Dominating is 1343
well-defined. 1344
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1345
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1346
SuperHyperConnective Dominating is well-defined. 1347
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1349
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1350
SuperHyperConnective Dominating is well-defined. 1351
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1352
is 1353
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1354
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1355
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1356
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1357
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1358
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1359
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1360
∅ is 1361
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1362
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1363
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1364
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1365
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1366
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1367
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1368
independent SuperHyperSet is 1369
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1370
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1371
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1372
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1373
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1374
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1375
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1376
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperConnective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1377
maximal 1378
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1379
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1380
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1381
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1382
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1383
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1384
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1385
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1386
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1387
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1388
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1389
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1390
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1391
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1392
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1393
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1394
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperConnective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1396
number of 1397
(i) : the SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1398
(ii) : the SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1399
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1400
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1401
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1402
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1403
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1404
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1405
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1407
(i) : the dual SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1408
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1409
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1410
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1411
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1412
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1413
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1414
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1417
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1418
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1419
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1420
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1424
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1425
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1426
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1429
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1430
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1431
is a 1432
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1436
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1437
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1438
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1441
number of 1442
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1446
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1447
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1448
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1449
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1450
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1451
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1453
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1454
(iv) : SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1458
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1459
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1460
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1461
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1462
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1463
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1464
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1465
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1469
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1471
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1473
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1474
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1478
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1479
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1480
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1482
SuperHyperConnective Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1484
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1485
of a dual 1486
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1490
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1491
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1492
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1494
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1495
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1496
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1502
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1503
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1504
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1505
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1506
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1507
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1508
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1509
such that 1510
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1511
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1512
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1513
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then 1514
(i) S is SuperHyperConnective Dominating set; 1515
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1516
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1517
Then 1518
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1519
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1520
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1521
which is connected. Then 1522
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1523
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1524
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1525
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1526
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1528
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1529
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1530
a dual SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1531
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1532
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective 1533
Dominating; 1534
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1535
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1536
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1537
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1538
dual SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1539
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Then 1540
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1541
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1543
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1544
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1545
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1546
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Then 1548
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1549
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1551
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1552
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1553
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1555
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1556
(ii) Γ = 1; 1557
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1558
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1559
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1560
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1561
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1562
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1563
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1564
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1565
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1566
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1567
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1568
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1570
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1571
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1572
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1574
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective 1575
Dominating; 1576
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1577
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 1578
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1579
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1581
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1582
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1583
SuperHyperConnective Dominating for N SHF; 1584
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1585
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1586
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1587
SuperHyperConnective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1588
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1589
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1590
SuperHyperSet. Then 1591
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1592
SuperHyperConnective Dominating for N SHF; 1593
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1594

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1595
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperConnective 1596
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1597
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1598
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1599
SuperHyperSet. Then 1600
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective 1601
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1602
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1603

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1604
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperConnective Dominating 1605
for N SHF : (V, E). 1606
Then following statements hold; 1608
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1609
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then S is an 1610
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1611
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1612
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then S is a dual 1613
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1614
Then following statements hold; 1616
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1617
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then S is an 1618
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1619
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1620
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then S is a dual 1621
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1622
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1623
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1624
statements hold; 1625
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1626
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1627
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c

+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1628
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1630
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1632
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1633
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1634
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1635
statements hold; 1636
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c

+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1637
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1639
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1641
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1643
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1644
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1646
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1647
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1648
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1650
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1652
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1655
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1657
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1658
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1659
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1661
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1663
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1664
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1666
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1668
SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1669
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1670
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1672
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1674
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1677
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1679
SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1680
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1681
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1683
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1685
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1688
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1689
Neutrosophic Recognition 1690
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1691
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1692
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1693
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1694
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1695
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1696
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1697
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1698
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1699
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1700
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1701
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1702
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1703
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1704
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1705
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1706
happened and what’s done. 1707
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1708
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1709
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1710
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1711
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 1712
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1713
find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating or the Neutrosophic 1714
SuperHyperConnective Dominating in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic 1715
SuperHyperModels. 1716
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1717
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1718
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1719
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1720
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1721
featured. 1722
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1723
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1724
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1725
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1726
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1727
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

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

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

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

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1729
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1730
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1731
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1732
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1733
Neutrosophic featured. 1734
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1735
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1736
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1737
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1738
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1739
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1741
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1742
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1743
The SuperHyperConnective Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating 1744
are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1745
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1746
recognitions? 1747
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperConnective 1748
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating?

Dominating 1749
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1750
compute them? 1751
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1752
SuperHyperConnective Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating? 1753
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperConnective Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective 1754
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on

Dominating 1755
SuperHyperConnective Dominating, are there else? 1756
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1757
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1758
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1759
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1760
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1761
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1762
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1763
highlighted. 1764
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1765
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1766
SuperHyperConnective Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition 1767
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. 1768
Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1769
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, finds the convenient 1770
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1771
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1772
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1773
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1774
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperConnective Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1775
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1776
the SuperHyperConnective Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1777
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 1778
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1779
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1780
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1781
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1782
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1783
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1784
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1785
formally called “ SuperHyperConnective Dominating” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1786
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1787
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this 1788
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1789
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperConnective Dominating
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1790
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1791
Forms 1792
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1793
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1797
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1798
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1799
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1800
|Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1801
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1802
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1803
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1804
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1805
|Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1806
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1807
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1808
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1809
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1810
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1813
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1815
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1816
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1817
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1818
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1820
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1821
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1824
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1825
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1828
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1829
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1830
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1831
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1834
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1835
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1837
Extreme coefficient; 1838
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1839
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1840
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1842
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1843
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1844
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1848
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1849
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1850
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1855
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1857
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1858
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1862
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1865
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1866
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1871
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1872
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1874
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1876
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1885
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1886
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1890
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1891
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1892
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1893
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1894
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1895
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1896
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1897
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1900
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1901
SuperHyperDuality. 1906

straightforward. 1909

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1969
ESHP : (V, E). Then 1970
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1971
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1975
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1979
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1980
ESHC : (V, E). Then 1981
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1982
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 1993
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1994
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2004
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2007
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 2012
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2013
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2014
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2015
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2016
solution 2019
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2026

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2029
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2030

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2036
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2041
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2049
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 2051
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2052
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2053
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2054

∃!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 2059
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2060
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2067
Forms 2069
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2070
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2074
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2075
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2076
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2077
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2079
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2080
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2081
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2082
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2084
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2085
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2086
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2087
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2090
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2091
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2092
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 2093
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2094
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2095
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2097
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2098
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2100
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2101
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2105
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2106
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2107
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2108
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2109
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2114
coefficient; 2115
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2116
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2119
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2120
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2121
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2122
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2125
coefficient; 2126
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2127
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2130
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2131
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2132
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2134
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2135
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2142
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2143
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2151
coefficient; 2152
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2153
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2159
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2162
coefficient. 2163
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2167
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2168
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2169
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2170
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2171
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2173
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2174
SuperHyperJoin. 2175
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

.
Proof. Let 2249
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2253
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2257

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

.
Proof. Let 2260
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2271
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2272

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2282
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2285
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 2290
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2291
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2292
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2294
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2295
solution 2297
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2304

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2307
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2308

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2312
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2313
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2314
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2319
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2327

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

.
Proof. Let 2330
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2331

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2335
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2336
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2337
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2338
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2345
Forms 2347
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2348
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2352
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2353
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2354
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2355
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2357
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2358
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2359
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2360
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2362
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2363
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2364
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2365
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2368
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2370
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2373
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2375
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2376
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2383
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2384
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2385
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2386
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2392
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2394
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2395
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2403
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2405
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2410
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2412
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2413
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2420
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2421
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2429
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2431
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2440
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2445
SuperHyperPerfect. 2453
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2527
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2531
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2535
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2538
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2549
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2550

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2560
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2563
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 2568
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2569
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2570
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2571
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2572
solution 2575
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2582

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2585
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2586

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2590
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2591
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2592
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2597
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2605
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2608

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2609

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2613
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2614
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2615
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2616
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2623
Forms 2625
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2626
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2630
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2631
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2632
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2633
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2635
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2636
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2637
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2638
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2640
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2641
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2642
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2643
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2646
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2648
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2651
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2653
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2654
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2656
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2661
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2662
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2663
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2670
coefficient; 2671
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2672
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2678
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2681
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2683
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2688
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2690
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2691
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2698
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2699
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2707
coefficient; 2708
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2709
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2715
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2718
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2723
SuperHyperTotal. 2731
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2805
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2809
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2813
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2816
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2827
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2828
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2838
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2841
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2846
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2847
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2850
solution 2853
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2860

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2863
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2864

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2868
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2869
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2875
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2883
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2886
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2887

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2891
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2892
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2893
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2894
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2901
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2902
Forms 2903
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2904
SuperHyperConnected). 2905
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2909
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2910
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2911
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2912
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2913
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2914
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2916
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2917
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2918
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2919
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2920
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2921
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2923
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2924
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2925
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2926
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2929
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2931
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2932
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2933
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2934
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2936
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2937
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2941
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2944
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2945
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2946
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2947
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2948
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2949
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2950
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2951
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2952
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2953
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2954
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2955
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2956
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2957
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2958
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2964
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2965
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2966
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2969
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2970
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 2971
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 2972
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2973
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2974
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2978
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2981
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2982
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2985
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 2988
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2991
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2993
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2996
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2999
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3002
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3003
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3007
SuperHyperConnected. 3015
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3089
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3093
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3097
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3100
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3111
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3112
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3122
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3125
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3130
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3131
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3134
solution 3137
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3144
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3147
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3152
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3153
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3159
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3167
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3170
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3172

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3175
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3176
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3177
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3178
17 Background 3186
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3187
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3188
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3189
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3190
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3191
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3192
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3193
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3194
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3195
with pages 32-55. 3196
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3197
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3198
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3199
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3200
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3201
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3202
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3203
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3204
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3205
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3206
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3207
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3208
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3209
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3210
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3211
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3212
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3213
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3214
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3215
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3216
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3217
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3218
SuperHyperNumbers. 3219
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3220
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3221
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3222
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3223
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3224
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3225
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3226
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3227
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3228
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3229
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3230
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3231
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3232
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3233
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3234
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3235
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3236
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3237
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3238
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3239
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3240
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3241
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3242
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3243
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3244
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3245
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3246
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3247
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3248
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3249
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3250
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3251
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3252
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3253
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3254
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3255
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3256
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3257
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3258
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3259
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3260
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3261
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3262
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3263
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3264
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3265
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3266
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3267
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3268
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3269
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3270
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3271
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3272
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3273
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3274
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3275
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3276
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3277
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3278
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3279
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3280
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3281
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3282
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3283
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3284
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3285
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3286
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3287
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3288
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3289
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3290
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3291
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3292
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3293
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3294
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3295
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [176] by Henry 3296
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3297
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3298
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [177] by Henry Garrett 3299
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3300
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3301
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [178] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3302
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3303
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3304
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [179] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3305
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3306
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [182] by 3307
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3308
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3309
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [183] by Henry 3310
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3311
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3312
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [186] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3313
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3314
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [189] by Henry 3315
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3316
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3317
in Ref. [190] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3318
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3319
Ref. [191] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3320
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3321
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [192] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3322
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3323
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [193] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3324
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3325
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [194] by Henry Garrett 3326
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3327
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [205] by Henry 3328
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3329
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3330
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [206] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [?, 4–25, 28–206], 3331
there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3332
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3333
at [208–323]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3334
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [324, 325]. 3335
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3336
proposed as book in Ref. [324] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3337
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3338
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3339
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3340
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3341
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3342
proposed as book in Ref. [325] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3343
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3344
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3345
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3346
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3347
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3348
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3349
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3350
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3351
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3352
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [?, 4–206] 3353
alongside scientific research books at [207–323]. Two popular scientific research books 3354
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic 3355
science is on [324, 325]. 3356
References 3357
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3358
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3359
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3360
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3361
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3362
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3363
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3364
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3365
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3366
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3367
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3368
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3369
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3370
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3371
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3372
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3373
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3374
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3375
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3376
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3377
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3378
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3379
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3380
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3381
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3382
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3383
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3384
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3385
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3386
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3387
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3388
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3389
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3390
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3391
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3392
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3393
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3394
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3395
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3396
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3397
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3398
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3399
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3400
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3401
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3402
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3403
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3404
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3405
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3406
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3407
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3408
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3409
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3410
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3411
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3412
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3413
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3414
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3415
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3416
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3417
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3418
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3419
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3420
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3421
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3422
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3423
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3424
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3425
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3426
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3427
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3428
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3429
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3430
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3431
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3432
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3433
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3434
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3435
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3436
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3437
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3439
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3443
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3444
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3445
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3446
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3447
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3448
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3449
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3450
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3451
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3452
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3453
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3454
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3455
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3456
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3457
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3458
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3459
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3460
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3461
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3462
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3464
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8025707). 3465
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3466
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3467
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3470
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3471
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3472
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3473
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3474
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3476
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3477
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3478
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3479
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3480
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3482
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3484
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3485
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943578). 3486
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3488
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3489
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3490
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3492
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3494
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3495
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3496
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3497
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3500
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3501
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3502
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3503
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3504
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3505
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3506
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3508
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3509
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3511
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3514
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3517
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3520
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3521
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3523
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3526
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3528
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3529
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3532
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3535
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3538
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3539
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3541
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3544
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3545
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3547
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3550
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3553
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3556
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3559
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3562
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3563
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3565
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3566
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3568
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3569
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3571
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3574
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3577
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3578
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3580
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3583
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3584
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3585
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3587
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3588
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3590
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3591
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3592
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3593
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3596
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3599
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3600
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3602
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3603
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3605
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3608
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3611
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3614
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3617
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3620
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3623
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3626
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3629
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3631
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3632
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3633
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3635
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3638
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3639
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3640
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3642
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3644
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3647
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3650
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3651
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3653
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3654
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3656
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3657
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3658
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3659
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3660
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3662
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3665
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3668
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3669
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3671
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3674
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3676
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3678
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3680
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3682
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3683
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3686
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3688
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3689
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3692
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3694
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3696
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3698
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3700
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3701
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3704
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3705
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3707
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3710
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3712
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3714
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3716
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3717
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3719
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3721
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3723
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3725
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3726
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3727
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3728
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3729
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3731
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3732
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3733
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3734
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3737
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3739
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3740
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3743
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3745
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3746
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3749
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3751
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3753
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3755
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3756
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3757
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3758
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3761
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3762
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3763
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3764
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3767
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3768
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3769
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3770
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3773
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3774
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3775
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3776
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3779
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3780
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3781
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3782
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3785
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3786
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3787
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3788
134. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3790
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3791
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3794
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3795
136. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3796
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3797
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3800
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3801
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3802
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3803
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3806
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3808
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3809
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3812
142. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3814
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3815
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3817
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3818
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3821
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3824
146. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3826
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3827
147. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3829
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3830
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3832
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3833
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3834
149. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3835
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3836
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3837
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3838
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3839
151. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3841
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3842
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3843
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3844
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3845
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3846
153. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3847
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3848
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3849
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3850
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3853
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3854
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3857
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3858
156. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3859
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3861
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3862
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3865
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3866
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3869
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3870
159. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3871
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3872
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3873
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3874
160. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3875
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3876
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3877
161. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3878
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3879
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3880
162. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3881
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3882
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3883
163. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3884
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3885
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3886
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3887
164. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3888
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3889
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3890
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3891
165. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3892
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3893
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3894
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3895
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3896
166. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3897
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3898
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3899
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3900
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3901
167. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3902
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3903
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3904
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3905
168. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3906
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3907
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3908
169. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3909
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3910
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3912
170. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3913
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3914
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3915
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3916
171. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3917
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3918
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3919
172. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3920
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3921
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3922
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3923
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3924
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3925
173. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3926
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3927
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3928
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3929
174. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3930
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3931
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3932
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3933
175. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3934
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3935
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3936
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3937
176. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3938
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3939
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3940
177. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3941
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3942
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3943
178. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3945
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3946
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3947
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3948
179. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3949
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3950
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3951
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3952
180. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3953
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3954
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3955
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3956
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3958
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3959
182. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3960
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3961
183. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3963
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3964
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3965
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3970
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3974
186. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3975
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3976
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3977
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3978
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3981
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3983
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3984
189. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3985
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3986
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3989
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3990
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3992
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3993
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3996
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3997
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3999
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4000
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4003
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4004
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4006
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4007
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 4009
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4014
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4015
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 4019
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 4020
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4023
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 4026
201. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4027
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4028
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4029
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4030
202. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4031
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4032
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4033
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 4034
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4037
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4038
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4041
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 4042
205. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4043
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4044
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4045
206. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4046
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4047
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4048
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4049
207. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4050
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 4051
208. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4052
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 4053
209. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4054
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 4055
210. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4056
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 4057
211. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4058
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 4059
212. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4060
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 4061
213. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4062
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7905287). 4063
214. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4064
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 4065
215. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4066
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7874677). 4067
216. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4068
217. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4070
218. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4072
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 4073
219. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4074
220. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4076
221. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4078
222. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4080
223. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4082
224. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4084
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4085
225. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4086
226. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4088
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4089
227. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4090
228. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4092
229. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4094
230. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4096
231. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4098
232. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4100
233. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4102
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4103
234. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4104
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4105
235. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4106
236. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4108
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4109
237. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4110
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4111
238. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4112
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4113
239. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4114
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4115
240. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4116
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4117
241. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4118
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4119
242. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4120
243. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4122
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4123
244. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4124
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4125
245. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4126
246. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4128
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4129
247. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4130
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4131
248. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4132
249. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4134
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4135
250. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4136
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4137
251. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4138
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4139
252. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4140
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4141
253. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4142
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4143
254. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4144
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4145
255. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4146
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4147
256. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4148
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4149
257. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4150
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4151
258. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4152
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4153
259. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4154
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4155
260. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4156
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4157
261. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4158
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4159
262. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4160
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4161
263. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4162
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4163
264. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4164
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4165
265. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4166
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4167
266. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4168
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4169
267. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4170
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4171
268. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4172
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4173
269. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4174
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4175
270. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4176
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4177
271. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4178
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4179
272. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4180
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4181
273. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4182
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4183
274. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4184
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4185
275. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4186
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4187
276. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4188
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4189
277. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4190
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4191
278. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4192
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4193
279. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4194
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4195
280. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4196
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4197
281. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4198
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4199
282. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4200
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4201
283. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4202
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4203
284. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4204
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4205
285. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4206
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4207
286. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4208
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4209
287. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4210
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4211
288. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4212
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4213
289. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4214
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4215
290. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4216
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4217
291. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4218
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4219
292. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4220
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4221
293. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4222
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4223
294. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4224
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4225
295. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4226
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4227
296. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4228
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4229
297. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4230
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4231
298. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4232
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4233
299. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4234
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4235
300. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4236
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4237
301. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4238
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4239
302. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4240
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4241
303. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4242
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4243
304. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4244
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4245
305. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4246
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4247
306. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4248
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4249
307. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4250
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4251
308. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4252
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4253
309. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4254
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4255
310. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4256
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4257
311. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4258
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4259
312. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4260
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4261
313. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4262
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4263
314. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4264
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4265
315. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4266
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4267
316. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4268
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4269
317. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4270
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4271
318. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4272
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4273
319. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4274
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4275
320. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4276
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4277
321. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4278
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4279
322. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4280
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4281
323. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4282
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4283
324. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4284
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4285
325. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4286
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4287
View publication stats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super Con

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super Con

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · June 2023

487 PUBLICATIONS 18,920 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

On Fuzzy Logic View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper 3

Conceit On Super Con 4

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

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

a Connective 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-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 14

∀Ea ∈ EN SHG , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 : ∃Vc ∈ VN SHG , Vc ∈ Ea , Eb

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 16

∀Ea ∈ EN SHG , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 : ∃Vc ∈ VN SHG , Vc ∈ Ea , Eb

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 19

∀Va , ∃Vb ∈ V 0 : ∃Ed ∈ EN SHG , Va , Vc ∈ Ed

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 21

∀Va , ∃Vb ∈ V 0 : ∃Ed ∈ EN SHG , Va , Vc ∈ Ed

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

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

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective 24

Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) 25

SuperHyperConnective Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is 26

a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) 27

E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s 28

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic 29

re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and 30

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 31

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 32

SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the 33

consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 34

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating; a 35

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 36

e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, 37

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective 38

maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 40

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 41

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they 42

form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperConnective 43

Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective 44

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic 45

v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and 46

C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 47

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 48

number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 49

Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 50

SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 52

coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 53

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic 54

re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and 55

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 56

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains 57