New Ideas On Super Con by Hyper Conceit of Connective Dominating in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371667111
New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective Dominating In

Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph
Preprint · June 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8051360
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
488 PUBLICATIONS 19,061 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Combinatorics View project
Featured Articles 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 On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 2
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3
SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
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
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 76
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 77
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: Extreme SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Cancer’s 221
Extreme 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 “Extreme 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 “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 245
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 Extreme 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
Extreme 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 an 267
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperConnective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 268
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 269
either the optimal SuperHyperConnective Dominating or the Extreme SuperHyperConnective 270
Dominating in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. 271
Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two 272
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 “Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating” on 286
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 287
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 288
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 Extreme 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 Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating, are figured out in sections “ 300
SuperHyperConnective Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating”. In the sense 301
of tackling on getting results and in Connective Dominating to make sense about continuing 302
the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme SuperHyperUniform are 303
introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out 304
to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 305
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there 306
are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 307
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 308
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The 309
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 310
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 311
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 312
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 313
SuperHyperConnective Dominating”, “Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating”, “Results on 314
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 315
questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 316
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 317
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperConnective Dominating”. 318
The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 319
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 320
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 321
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 322
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 323
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 324
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 325
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 326
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 327
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 328
Research On the Redeemed Ways 329
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 330
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 331
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.5,p.2), 332
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 333
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 334
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 335
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [1],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 336
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 337
(Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 338
to Ref. [206]. 339
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 340
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 341
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.1,p.1). 342
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 343
+
]− 0, 1 [. 344
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2). 345
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 346
2.5,p.2). 347
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 348
pair S = (V, E), where 349
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 350
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 351
1, 2, . . . , n); 352
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 353
V; 354
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 355
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 356
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 357
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 358
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 359
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ); 360
(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 . 361
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 362
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 363
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 364
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 365
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 366
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 367
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 368
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 369
the ii0 th element of the Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 370
(NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 371
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 372
(Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3). 373
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 374
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 375
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 376
characterized as follow-up items. 377
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 378
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 379
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 380
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 381
HyperEdge; 382
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 383
SuperEdge; 384
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 385
SuperHyperEdge. 386
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 387
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 388
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3). 389
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 390
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 391
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 392
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 393
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 394
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 395
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)). 396
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 397
pair S = (V, E), where 398
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 399
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 400
1, 2, . . . , n); 401
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 402
V; 403
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 404
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 405
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 406
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 407
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 408
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 409
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 410
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 411
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 412
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 413
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 414
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 415
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 416
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 417
the ii0 th element of the Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 418
(NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 419
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 420
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 422
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 423
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 424
characterized as follow-up items. 425
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 426
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 427
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 428
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 429
HyperEdge; 430
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 431
SuperEdge; 432
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 433
SuperHyperEdge. 434
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 435
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 436
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 437
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 438
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 439
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 440
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 441
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 442
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 443
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 444
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 445
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 446
given SuperHyperEdges; 447
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 448
SuperHyperEdges; 449
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 450
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 451
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 452
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 453
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 454
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 455
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 456
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 457
common SuperVertex. 458
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 459
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 460
of following conditions hold: 461
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 462
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 463
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 464
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 465
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 466
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 467
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 468
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 469
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 470
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei .
0 471
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 472
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). a

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 473
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 474
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 475
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 476
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 477
SuperHyperPath . 478
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 479
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 481
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 482
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 483
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 484
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 485
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 486
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 487
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 488
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 489
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 490
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 491
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 492
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 493
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 494
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 496
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 497
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 499
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 500
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 501
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 502
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective 503
Dominating). 504
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 506
either V 0 or E 0 is called 507
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is 508
called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 509

(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is 510
called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 511

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 512
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is 513
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 514

(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the following expression is 515
called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating criteria holds 516

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 517
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 518
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and Neutrosophic 520
rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 521
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnective Dominating). 522
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 524
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 525
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 529
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 530
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 531
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnective 532
Dominating; 533
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 534
rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 537
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 538
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 539
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 540
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 541
SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 542
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 543
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 547
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme 549
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 550
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 551
Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 552
its Extreme coefficient; 553
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if 554
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Neutrosophic 555
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 558
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 559
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 560
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 562
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Neutrosophic 563
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 564
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 565
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 570
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 571
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnective 572
Dominating; 573
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 574
rv-SuperHyperConnective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 577
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 578
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 579
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 580
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 581
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if 583
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 587
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 589
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 590
Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to 592
its Extreme coefficient; 593
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if 594
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 598
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 599
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 600
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 602
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating; and the Neutrosophic 603
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 604
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperConnective Dominating). 605
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 606
(i) an δ−SuperHyperConnective Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 607
SuperHyperConnective Dominating such that either of the following expressions hold for 608
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 609
|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 610
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 611
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnective Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of 612
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating such that either of the following 613
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 614
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 615
|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. 616
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 617
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 618
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, there’s a need to 619
“redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 620
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 621
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 622
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 623
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 624
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 625
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 626
understandable. 627
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 628
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 629
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperConnective Dominating, 630
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 631
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 632
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 633
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 634
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 635
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective 636
Dominating. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic 637
SuperHyperConnective Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 638
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating, there’s a need to 639
“redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating”. 640
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 641
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 642
assign to the values. 643
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperConnective Dominating. It’s redefined a 644
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnective Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 645

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The

Connective Dominating 646
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 647
Forms 648
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 649
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 650
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is called 651
Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called Extreme 652
event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 653
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 654
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 656
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 657
s-independent criteria 658
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 659
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 660
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 661
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Any k-function Connective Dominating like E is 663
called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Connective Dominating like E is 664
called Extreme Variable. 665
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 666
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 667
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 669
called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 670
Expectation criteria 671
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 672
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. an Extreme number is called Extreme 674
Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 675
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 676
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let m and n propose special Connective 677
Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 678
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 679
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 680
independently with probability Connective Dominating p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 681
H := G[S]. 682
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 683
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
684
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 685
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 686
points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines

√ in the plane 687
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 688
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 689
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points on the 690
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 691
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 692
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 693
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 694
2 3
l < 32n /k . 695
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 697
points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 698
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 699
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 700
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit SuperHyperCircle 701
around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number P of these 702
SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0n−1 ni = n and 703
k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
704
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 705
between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at 706
least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 707
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 708
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 709
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 710
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 711
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 712
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 713
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 714
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 715
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let X be a nonnegative 716
Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 717
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. 718
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 719
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let Xn be a 720
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Connective Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 721
E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 722
Proof. 723
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 724
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. A special 725
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 726
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. 728
Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, 729
where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 730
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 731
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 732
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 733
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 734
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 735
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 736
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: 737
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 738
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 739
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 740
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 741
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 742
number at most k. 743
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 744
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a number is 746
called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme Variance 747
criteria 748
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let X be an Extreme 750
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 751
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let t be 753
a positive real number. Then 754
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
755
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let Xn be an Extreme 757
Variable in a probability Connective Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 758
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 759
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 761
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 762
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 763
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set 765
f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 766
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 767
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. As in the proof of related Theorem, the 769
result is straightforward. 770
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and let 772
f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 773
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 774
or 775
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 776
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 778
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 779
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 781
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 782
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 783
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 784
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 785
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 786
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let F be a fixed Extreme 788
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 789
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 790
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. Let F be a nonempty 792
balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 793
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 794
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 795
S = (V, E) is a probability Connective Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 797
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 798
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 799
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 800
SuperHyperConnective Dominating, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 801
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 802
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 803
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 804
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 805
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 806
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.3)
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 807
Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 808
C(N SHG)Extreme Connective Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Connective Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
809
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 812
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 813
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 814
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 815
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 816
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnective 817
Dominating. 818

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

819
straightforward. 822

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

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


827

{E2 }.
= z 6−c .
{V5 }.
= z 7−c .

831

{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
835

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

839

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
843

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



847

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
851

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

855

{E1 }.
= z 5−a .
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }.
= z 5−a .
859

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



863

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .
867

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


871

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 }.
= z 2−a .
875

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
879




{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
883

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

887

{E6 }.
= z 4−a .
{V1 }.
= z 6−a .
891

{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .

895

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .
899
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 900
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Connective 901
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 902
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 903
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount 904
of them. 905
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 906
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 907
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 908
any given Extreme quasi-R-Connective Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 909
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 910


SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 911
an Extreme quasi-R-Connective Dominating, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of 912
them but not all of them. 913
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Connective Dominating is at 914
least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 915
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 916
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 917
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Connective Dominating 918
in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the 919
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 920
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Connective Dominating. 921
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Connective Dominating has, the least Extreme cardinality,
the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Connective Dominating with the least Extreme cardinality, the 922
lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 923
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 924
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 925
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ConnectiveDominating
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ConnectiveDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−ConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower 926
sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Connective Dominating is the 927
cardinality of 928
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ConnectiveDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−ConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Connective Dominating
since neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices
where amount refers to the Extreme number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges)
more than one to form any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of
SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-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 Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-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 929
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 930
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 931
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 932
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 933
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 934
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 935
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 936
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Connective Dominating decorates the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this Extreme
style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum
Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The
lower Extreme bound is to have the maximum Extreme groups of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices have perfect Extreme connections inside each of SuperHyperEdges
and the outside of this Extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the
connectedness of the used Extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its Extreme
properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no Extreme
connection. Furthermore, the Extreme existence of one Extreme SuperHyperVertex has
no Extreme effect to talk about the Extreme R-Connective Dominating. Since at least two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the Extreme background of the
Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The Extreme SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no
Extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least two Extreme SuperHyperVertices make the
Extreme version of Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the Extreme setting of
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as Extreme
adjective for the initial Extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no Extreme
appearance of the loop Extreme version of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge and this
Extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The Extreme adjective “loop” on the
basic Extreme framework engages one Extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never happens
in this Extreme setting. With these Extreme bases, on an Extreme SuperHyperGraph,
there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least an Extreme
R-Connective Dominating has the Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus,
an Extreme R-Connective Dominating has the Extreme cardinality at least an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This Extreme
SuperHyperSet isn’t an Extreme R-Connective Dominating since either the Extreme
SuperHyperGraph is an obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since
there’s no Extreme usage of this Extreme framework and even more there’s no Extreme
connection inside or the Extreme SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its
consequences, there’s an Extreme contradiction with the term “Extreme R-Connective
Dominating” since the maximum Extreme cardinality never happens for this Extreme style
of the Extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no Extreme connection inside as
mentioned in first Extreme case in the forms of drawback for this selected Extreme
SuperHyperSet. Let
Comes up. This Extreme case implies having the Extreme style of on-quasi-triangle
Extreme style on the every Extreme elements of this Extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely,
the Extreme R-Connective Dominating is the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that some Extreme amount of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle Extreme style. The Extreme cardinality of the
v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Extreme SuperHyperSet
But the lower Extreme bound is up. Thus the minimum Extreme cardinality of the
maximum Extreme cardinality ends up the Extreme discussion. The first Extreme term
refers to the Extreme setting of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph but this key point is
enough since there’s an Extreme SuperHyperClass of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph has
no on-quasi-triangle Extreme style amid some amount of its Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. This Extreme setting of the Extreme SuperHyperModel proposes
an Extreme SuperHyperSet has only some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices from
one Extreme SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Extreme amount of Extreme
SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. The Extreme cardinality of this Extreme SuperHyperSet is the
maximum and the Extreme case is occurred in the minimum Extreme situation. To sum
them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Extreme cardinality such that
Contains some Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Connective Dominating for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used Extreme 937
background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common theme of the 938
lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the 939
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 940
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

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

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

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

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 941
Extreme R-Connective Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
942
Extreme R-Connective Dominating =

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

is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme Connective Dominating, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could
be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
R-Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Connective Dominating is 943
at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 944
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In 945
other words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the 946
maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme 947
Connective Dominating in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme 948
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, 949
has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Connective Dominating. 950
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 951
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 952
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 953
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 954
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 955
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 956
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 957
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 958
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 959
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 960
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Connective Dominating 961
where the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 962
literarily, an Extreme embedded R-Connective Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of 963
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 964
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 965
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 966
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 967
Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Extreme 968
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded 969
Extreme R-Connective Dominating. The interior types of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 970
deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the 971
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more 972
formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any 973
distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Connective Dominating. 974
Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme 975
SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme 976
SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme 977
Connective Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since 978
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 979
relevant than the title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, 980
inside. Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 981
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 982
implying the Extreme R-Connective Dominating. The Extreme R-Connective Dominating with the 983
exclusion of the exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme 984
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Extreme R-Connective Dominating with the 985
inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an 986
Extreme quasi-R-Connective Dominating. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 987
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme 988
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct 989
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Connective 990
Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In 991
other words, there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 992
only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Connective Dominating, 993
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 994
The main definition of the Extreme R-Connective Dominating has two titles. an Extreme 995
quasi-R-Connective Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 996
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 997
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Connective Dominating with that quasi-maximum 998
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 999
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1000
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1001
quasi-R-Connective Dominatings for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme corresponded 1002
maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Connective Dominating ends up but this 1003
essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Connective Dominating, again and more 1004
in the operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Connective Dominatings acted on the 1005
all possible used formations of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme 1006
number. This Extreme number is 1007
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Connective Dominatings. 1008
Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Connective Dominating be an Extreme 1009
number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and an Extreme Connective Dominating. Then 1010
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Connective Dominating ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Connective Dominating is 1011
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1012
GExtreme Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1013
technical definition for the Extreme Connective Dominating. 1014
GExtreme Connective Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1015
Connective Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1016

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1017

= max zExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1018


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1019
GExtreme Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1020

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

1021


1022


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1023
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1024
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1025
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1026
Quasi-Connective Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme Quasi-Connective 1027
Dominating” since “Extreme Quasi-Connective Dominating” happens “Extreme Connective Dominating” 1028
in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “Extreme 1029
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme Connective Dominating” in an 1030
Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since 1031
there are some ambiguities about the Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To 1032
get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme 1033
Quasi-Connective Dominating”, and “Extreme Connective Dominating” are up. 1034
Thus, let 1035
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1036
GExtreme Connective Dominating be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1037
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Connective Dominating and the new terms are up. 1038
GExtreme Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1039

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1040

∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1041

And with go back to initial structure, 1042
GExtreme Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =


1043

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

1044


1045


Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1046
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Connective Dominating if for any 1047
of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1048
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1049
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1050
them. 1051
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1052
are coming up. 1053
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1054
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1055
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1056
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1057
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1058
Extreme Connective Dominating is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the

Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended Extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme Connective Dominating is up. The obvious
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Connective Dominating is an Extreme
SuperHyperSet includes only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex. But the Extreme

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

. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Dominating
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1059
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1060
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1061
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Connective 1062
Dominating and it’s an Extreme Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1063
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for
some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Connective Dominating. There isn’t only less than two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Connective Dominating,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Connective
, not:
Dominating
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1064
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1065
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1066
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1067
“Extreme R-Connective Dominating” 1068
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1069
Extreme R-Connective Dominating, 1070
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Connective Dominating amid those obvious
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Connective Dominating, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1071
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Connective Dominating is the cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1072
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Connective 1073
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1074
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 1075
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any 1076
amount of them. 1077
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1078
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1079
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1080
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1081
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1082
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Connective Dominating with the least 1083
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1084
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1085
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1086
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1087
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Connective Dominating. 1088
Since it doesn’t have 1089
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1091
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1092
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1093
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme R-Connective 1094
Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that there’s an 1095
Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there 1096
are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the 1097
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1098
titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the 1099
Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only 1100
one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1101
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 1102
Extreme R-Connective Dominating, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1103
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Connective Dominating, VESHE , is an Extreme 1104
SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any 1105
kind of Extreme pairs are titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme 1106
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1107
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality 1108
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 1109
Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, 1110
in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Connective 1111
Dominating only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1112
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1113
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1114
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1115
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1116
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1117
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Connective Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1118
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1119
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1120
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Connective Dominating. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1121
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1122
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−ConnectiveDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−ConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Connective Dominating. The 1123
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1124
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1125
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1126
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1128
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1129
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1130
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1131
non-obvious Extreme Connective Dominating is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1132
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Connective Dominating is an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1133
includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1134
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1135
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1136
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1137
Extreme Connective Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1138
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1139
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Connective 1140
. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Dominating 1141
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1142
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1143
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1144
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1145
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Connective Dominating and 1146
it’s an Extreme Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1147
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1149
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1150
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1151
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1152
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Connective Dominating , 1153
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Connective 1154
, not:
Dominating 1155
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1156
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1157
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1158
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1159
“Extreme Connective Dominating ” 1160
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1161
Extreme Connective Dominating , 1162
is only and only 1163
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1164
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1165
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1166
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1167
SuperHyperClasses. 1168
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1169

|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 1170
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1171
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme Super-

HyperConnective Dominating in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1172
There’s a new way to redefine as 1173
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 1174
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnective Dominating. The 1175
latter is straightforward. 1176
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1177
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1178
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1179
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1180
Then 1181

|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 1182
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1183
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1184

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1189
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1190
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1191
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1192

{Ei }.
= z |Ei | .
{CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1193
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1194
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1195
a new way to redefine as 1196

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1200
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1201
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1202
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1203
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1204
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1205
Then 1206

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

SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1207
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
1208
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1209

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1213
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1214
SuperHyperConnective Dominating could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1215
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Example (16.11)
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1216
the 1217
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnective Dominating taken from a connected Extreme 1218
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1219
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1220
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
The latter is straightforward. 1221
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1222
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1223
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1224
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1225
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1226
Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1227
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1228
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1229

|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 1230
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1231
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1233

latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1236
Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1237
SuperHyperConnective Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1238
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1239
the 1240
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1241
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1242
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Example (16.13)
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1245
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1246
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1247
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1248
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 1249
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1250
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1251
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1252

{Ei }.
= z |Ei | .
{CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1253
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.15)
1254
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1256

latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Thus 1259
the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnective 1260
Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnective Dominating proposes 1261
some longest SuperHyperConnective Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter 1262
is straightforward. 1263
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1264
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1265
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1266
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1267
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1268
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1269
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1270
For the SuperHyperConnective Dominating, Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating, and the 1271
Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating, some general results are introduced. 1272
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating is “redefined” 1273
on the positions of the alphabets. 1274
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Then 1275
Extreme SuperHyperConnectiveDominating =
{theSuperHyperConnectiveDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperConnectiveDominating
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperConnectiveDominating. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1276
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1277
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1278
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1279
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating and 1280
SuperHyperConnective Dominating coincide. 1281
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1283
SuperHyperConnective Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1284
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1286
SuperHyperConnective Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1287
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1288
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating is its 1289
SuperHyperConnective Dominating and reversely. 1290
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnective Dominating, 1291
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1292
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating is 1293
its SuperHyperConnective Dominating and reversely. 1294
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1295
SuperHyperConnective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnective Dominating 1296
isn’t well-defined. 1297
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1298
Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnective 1299
Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1300
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1302
Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1303
SuperHyperConnective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1304
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1305
SuperHyperConnective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnective Dominating is 1306
well-defined. 1307
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1308
its Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnective 1309
Dominating is well-defined. 1310
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1312
Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1313
SuperHyperConnective Dominating is well-defined. 1314
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1315
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1316
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1317
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1318
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1319
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1320
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1321
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1322
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1323
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1324
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1325
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1326
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1327
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1328
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1329
independent SuperHyperSet is 1330
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1331
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1332
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1333
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1334
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1335
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1336
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1337
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperConnective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 1338
maximal 1339
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1340
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1341
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1342
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1343
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1344
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1345
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1346
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1347
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1348
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1349
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1350
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1351
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1352
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1353
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1354
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1355
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperConnective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1357
number of 1358
(i) : the SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1359
(ii) : the SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1360
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1361
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1362
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1363
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1364
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1365
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1366
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1368
(i) : the dual SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1369
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1370
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1371
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1372
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1373
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1374
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1375
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1378
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1379
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1380
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1381
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1385
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1386
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1387
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1390
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1391
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1392
is a 1393
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1397
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1398
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1399
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1402
number of 1403
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1407
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1408
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1409
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1410
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1411
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1412
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1414
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1415
(iv) : SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1419
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1420
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1421
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1422
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1423
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1424
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1425
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1426
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1430
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1432
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1433
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1434
setting of dual 1435
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1439
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1440
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1441
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1443
SuperHyperConnective Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1445
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1446
dual 1447
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1451
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1452
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1453
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1455
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1456
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1457
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1463
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1464
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1465
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1466
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1467
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1468
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such 1469
that 1470
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1471
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1472
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1473
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then 1474
(i) S is SuperHyperConnective Dominating set; 1475
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1476
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1477
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1478
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1479
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1480
connected. Then 1481
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1482
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1483
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1484
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1485
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1487
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1488
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1489
a dual SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1490
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1491
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective 1492
Dominating; 1493
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1494
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1495
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1496
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1497
dual SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1498
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Then 1499
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1500
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1502
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1503
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1504
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1505
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperConnective Dominating. Then 1507
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1508
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1510
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1511
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1512
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1514
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1515
(ii) Γ = 1; 1516
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1517
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1518
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1519
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1520
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1521
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1522
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1523
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1524
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1525
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1526
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1527
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1529
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1530
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1531
SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1532
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1533
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective 1534
Dominating; 1535
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1536

bnc ; 1537
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1538
SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1539
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1540
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1541
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1542
SuperHyperConnective Dominating for N SHF; 1543
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1544
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1545
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1546
SuperHyperConnective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1547
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1548
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1549
SuperHyperSet. Then 1550
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1551
SuperHyperConnective Dominating for N SHF; 1552
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1553

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1554
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperConnective 1555
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1556
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1557
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1558
SuperHyperSet. Then 1559
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective 1560
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1561
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1562

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1563
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperConnective Dominating 1564
for N SHF : (V, E). 1565
following statements hold; 1567
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1568
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then S is an 1569
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1570
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1571
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then S is a dual 1572
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1573
following statements hold; 1575
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1576
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then S is an 1577
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1578
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1579
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating, then S is a dual 1580
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1581
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1582
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1583
hold; 1584
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c

+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1585
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1586
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1587
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1589
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1591
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1592
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1593
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1594
hold; 1595
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1596
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1598
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1600
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1602
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1603
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1605
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1606
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1607
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1609
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1611
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1614
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1616
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1617
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1618
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1620
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1622
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating; 1623
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1625
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperConnective 1627
Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1628
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1629
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1631
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1633
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1636
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperConnective 1638
Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1639
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1640
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1642
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1644
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1647
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1648
Recognition 1649
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1650
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1651
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1652
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1653
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1654
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1655
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1656
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1657
long-term Extreme function. 1658
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1659
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1660
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1661
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1662
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1663
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1664
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1665
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1666
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1667
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1668
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1669
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 1670
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1671
find either the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating or the Extreme 1672
SuperHyperConnective Dominating in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1673
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1674
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1675
SuperHyperModel 1676
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1677
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1678
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1679
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1680
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1681
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1682
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1683
the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1684
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1685
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1686
SuperHyperModel 1687
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1688
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1689
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

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

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1690
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1691
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1692
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1694
is the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating. 1695
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1696
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1697
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1698
The SuperHyperConnective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating are 1699
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1700
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1701
recognitions? 1702
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperConnective 1703
and the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating?

Dominating 1704
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1705
compute them? 1706
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1707
SuperHyperConnective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating? 1708
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperConnective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperConnective 1709
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on

Dominating 1710
SuperHyperConnective Dominating, are there else? 1711
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1712
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1713
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1714
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1715
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1716
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1717
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1718
highlighted. 1719
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1720
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1721
SuperHyperConnective Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition 1722
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based 1723
on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 1724
Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating, finds the convenient background to implement 1725
some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some Extreme 1726
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 1727
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 1728
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1729
SuperHyperConnective Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 1730
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperConnective 1731
Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating. The clarifications, instances 1732
and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature 1733
reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 1734
SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the 1735
“Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes 1736
the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded 1737
styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based 1738
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with 1739
the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “ 1740
SuperHyperConnective Dominating” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 1741
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 1742
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this research are,
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperConnective Dominating
3. Extreme SuperHyperConnective Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1743
figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1744
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1745
Forms 1747
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1748
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1749
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1750
V 0 or E 0 is called 1751
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1752
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1753
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1754
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1755
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1756
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1757
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1758
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1759
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1760
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1761
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1762
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1763
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1765
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1766
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1767
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1768
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1769
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1770
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1771
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1773
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1774
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1775
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1776
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1777
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1778
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1779
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1780
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1781
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1782
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1784
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 1786
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1787
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1789
Extreme coefficient; 1790
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1791
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1801
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1806
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1808
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1809
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1813
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1814
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1815
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1816
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1817
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1821
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1822
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1826
Extreme coefficient. 1835
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1839
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1840
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1841
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1842
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1843
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1845
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme 1848
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1849
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1850
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1851
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1852
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1853


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1896
Then 1897
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1898
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1902
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1906
Then 1908
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1909
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1917
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1918
Then 1919
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1920
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1930
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1931
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1932
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1933
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 1938
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1939
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1940
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1941
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1942
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1943
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1951

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1954
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1955

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1961
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1972
Proposition 12.14. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1973
Then, 1974
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1975
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1976
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1977

∃!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 1982
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1983
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 1985
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1986
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1988
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 1989
Forms 1991
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 1992
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E , ∃Ej ∈ E , such that 1996
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 1997
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 1998
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 1999
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2000
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2001
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2002
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2003
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2004
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2005
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2006
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2007
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2008
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2011
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2012
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2013
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2017
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2018
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2020
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2024
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2025
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2026
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2027
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2033
coefficient; 2034
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2035
coefficient; 2044
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2045
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2051
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2052
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2056
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2058
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2059
coefficient; 2068
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2069
coefficient. 2078
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2082
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2083
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2088
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2090
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2096


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2140
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

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

.
Proof. Let 2141
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2145
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2149
Then 2151

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

.
Proof. Let 2152
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2160
Then 2162
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2163

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2173
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2176
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 2181
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2182
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2183
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2185
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2194

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2197
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2198
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2199

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2202
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2203
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2204
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2215
Then, 2217

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

.
Proof. Let 2218
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2219

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2223
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2224
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2225
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2226
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2231
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2232
Forms 2234
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2235
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2239
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2240
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2241
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2242
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2243
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2244
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2245
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2246
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2247
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2248
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2249
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2250
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2253
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2255
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2259
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2260
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2262
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2266
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2267
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2268
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2269
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2275
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2277
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2287
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2288
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2292
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2294
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2295
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2296
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2299
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2300
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2301
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2302
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2303
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2312
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2325
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2331
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2339


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2383
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2384
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2388
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2392
Then 2394
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2395
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2403
Then 2405
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2406

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2416
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2419
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 2424
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2425
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2426
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2427
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2428
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2437

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2440
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2441

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2445
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2446
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2447
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2458
Then, 2460
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2461
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2462

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2466
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2467
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2468
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2469
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2474
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2475
Forms 2477
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2478
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2482
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2483
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2484
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2485
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2486
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2487
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2488
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2489
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2490
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2491
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2492
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2493
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2496
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2498
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2502
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2503
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2505
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2509
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2510
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2511
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2512
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2518
coefficient; 2519
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2520
coefficient; 2529
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2530
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2536
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2537
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2541
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2543
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2544
coefficient; 2553
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2554
coefficient. 2563
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2567
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2573
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2581


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2625
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2626
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2630
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2634
Then 2636
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2637
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2645
Then 2647
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2648
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2658
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2661
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2666
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2667
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2670
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2679

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2682
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2683
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2684

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2687
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2688
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2700
Then, 2702
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2703
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2704

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2708
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2709
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2710
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2711
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2716
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2717
Forms 2719
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2720
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2724
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2725
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2726
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2727
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2728
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2729
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2730
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2731
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2732
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2733
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2734
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2735
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2736
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2737
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2740
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2742
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2743
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2744
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2745
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2747
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2748
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2751
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2752
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2753
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2754
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2755
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2756
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2758
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2763
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2765
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2766
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2775
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2779
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2780
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2782
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2783
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2787
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2788
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2789
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2790
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2791
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2792
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2793
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2800
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2801
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2813
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2814
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2815
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2816
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2817
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2818
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2819
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2820
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2823
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2824
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2825
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2826
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2828


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2892
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2893
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2897
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2901
Then 2903
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2904
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2907
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2912
Then 2914
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2915
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2925
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2928
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2933
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2934
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2937
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2938
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2946
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2949
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2950

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2954
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2955
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2967
Then, 2969
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2970
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2971

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2975
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2976
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2977
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2978
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2984
17 Background 2985
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 2986
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 2987
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 2988
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 2989
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 2990
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 2991
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 2992
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 2993
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 2994
with pages 32-55. 2995
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 2996
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 2997
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 2998
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 2999
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3000
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3001
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3002
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3003
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3004
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3005
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3006
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3007
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3008
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3009
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3010
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3011
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3012
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3013
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3014
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3015
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3016
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3017
SuperHyperNumbers. 3018
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3019
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3020
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3021
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3022
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3023
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3024
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3025
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3026
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3027
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3028
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3029
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3030
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3031
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3032
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3033
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3034
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3035
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3036
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3037
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3038
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3039
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3040
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3041
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3042
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3043
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3044
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3045
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3046
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3047
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3048
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3049
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3050
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3051
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3052
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3053
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3054
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3055
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3056
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3057
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3058
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3059
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3060
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3061
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3062
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3063
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3064
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3065
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3066
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3067
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3068
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3069
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3070
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3071
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3072
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3073
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3074
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3075
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3076
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3077
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3078
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3079
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3080
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3081
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3082
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3083
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3084
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3085
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3086
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3087
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3088
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3089
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3090
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3091
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3092
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3093
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3094
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [176] by Henry 3095
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3096
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3097
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [177] by Henry Garrett 3098
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3099
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3100
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [178] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3101
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3102
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3103
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [179] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3104
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3105
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [182] by 3106
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3107
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3108
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [183] by Henry 3109
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3110
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3111
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [186] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3112
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3113
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [189] by Henry 3114
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3115
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3116
in Ref. [190] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3117
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3118
Ref. [191] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3119
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3120
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [192] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3121
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3122
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [193] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3123
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3124
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [194] by Henry Garrett 3125
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3126
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [205] by Henry 3127
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3128
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3129
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [206] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [?, 4–25, 28–206], 3130
there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3131
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3132
at [208–323]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3133
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [324, 325]. 3134
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3135
proposed as book in Ref. [324] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3136
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3137
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3138
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3139
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3140
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3141
proposed as book in Ref. [325] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3142
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3143
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3144
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3145
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3146
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3147
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3148
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3149
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3150
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3151
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [?, 4–206] 3152
alongside scientific research books at [207–323]. Two popular scientific research books 3153
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic 3154
science is on [324, 325]. 3155
References 3156
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3157
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3158
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3159
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3160
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3161
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3162
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3163
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3164
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3165
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3166
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3167
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3168
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3169
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3170
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3171
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3172
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3173
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3174
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3175
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3176
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3177
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3178
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3179
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3180
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3181
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3182
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3183
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3184
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3185
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3186
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3187
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3188
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3189
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3190
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3191
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3192
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3193
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3194
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3195
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3196
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3197
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3198
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3199
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3200
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3201
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3202
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3203
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3204
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3205
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3206
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3207
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3208
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3209
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3210
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3211
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3212
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3213
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3214
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3215
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3216
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3217
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3218
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3219
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3220
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3221
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3222
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3223
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3224
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3225
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3226
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3227
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3228
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3229
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3230
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3231
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3232
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3233
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3234
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3235
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3236
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3238
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3242
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3243
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3244
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3245
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3246
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3247
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3248
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3249
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3250
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3251
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3252
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3253
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3254
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3255
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3256
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3257
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3258
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3259
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3260
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3261
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3263
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8025707). 3264
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3265
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3266
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3269
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3270
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3271
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3272
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3273
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3275
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3276
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3277
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3278
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3279
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3281
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3283
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3284
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943578). 3285
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3287
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3288
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3289
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3291
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3293
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3294
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3295
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3296
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3299
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3300
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3301
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3302
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3303
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3304
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3305
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3307
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3308
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3310
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3313
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3316
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3319
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3320
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3322
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3325
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3327
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3328
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3331
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3334
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3337
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3338
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3340
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3343
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3344
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3346
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3349
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3352
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3355
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3358
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3361
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3362
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3364
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3365
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3367
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3368
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3370
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3373
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3376
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3377
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3379
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3382
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3383
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3384
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3386
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3387
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3389
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3390
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3391
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3392
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3395
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3398
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3399
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3401
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3402
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3404
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3407
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3410
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3413
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3416
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3419
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3422
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3425
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3428
81. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3430
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3431
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3432
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3434
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3437
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3438
84. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3439
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3441
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3443
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3446
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3449
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3450
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3452
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3453
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3455
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3456
90. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3457
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3458
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3459
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3461
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3464
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3467
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3468
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3470
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3473
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3475
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3477
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3479
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3481
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3482
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3485
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3487
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3488
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3491
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3493
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3495
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3497
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3499
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3500
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3503
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3504
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3506
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3509
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3511
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3513
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3515
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3516
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3518
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3520
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3522
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3524
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3525
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3526
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3527
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3528
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3530
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3531
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3532
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3533
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3536
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3538
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3539
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3542
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3544
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3545
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3548
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3550
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3552
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3554
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3555
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3556
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3557
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3560
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3561
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3562
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3563
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3566
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3567
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3568
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3569
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3572
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3573
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3574
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3575
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3578
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3579
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3580
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3581
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3584
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3585
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3586
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3587
134. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3589
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3590
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3593
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3594
136. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3595
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3596
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3599
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3600
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3601
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3602
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3605
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3607
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3608
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3611
142. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3613
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3614
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3616
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3617
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3620
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3623
146. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3625
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3626
147. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3628
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3629
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3631
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3632
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3633
149. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3634
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3635
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3636
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3637
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3638
151. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3640
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3641
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3642
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3643
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3644
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3645
153. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3646
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3647
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3648
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3649
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3652
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3653
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3656
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3657
156. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3658
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3660
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3661
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3664
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3665
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3668
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3669
159. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3670
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3671
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3672
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3673
160. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3674
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3675
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3676
161. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3677
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3678
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3679
162. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3680
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3681
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3682
163. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3683
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3684
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3685
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3686
164. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3687
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3688
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3689
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3690
165. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3691
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3692
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3693
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3694
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3695
166. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3696
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3697
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3698
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3699
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3700
167. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3701
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3702
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3703
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3704
168. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3705
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3706
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3707
169. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3708
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3709
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3711
170. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3712
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3713
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3714
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3715
171. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3716
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3717
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3718
172. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3719
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3720
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3721
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3722
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3723
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3724
173. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3725
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3726
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3727
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3728
174. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3729
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3730
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3731
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3732
175. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3733
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3734
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3735
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3736
176. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3737
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3738
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3739
177. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3740
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3741
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3742
178. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3744
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3745
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3746
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3747
179. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3748
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3749
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3750
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3751
180. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3752
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3753
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3754
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3755
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3757
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3758
182. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3759
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3760
183. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3762
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3763
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3764
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3769
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3773
186. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3774
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3775
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3776
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3777
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3780
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3782
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3783
189. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3784
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3785
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3788
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3789
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3791
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3792
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3795
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3796
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3798
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3799
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3802
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3803
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3805
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3806
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3808
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3813
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3814
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3818
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3819
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3822
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3825
201. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3826
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3827
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3828
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3829
202. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3830
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3831
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3832
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3833
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3836
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3837
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3840
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3841
205. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3842
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3843
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3844
206. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3845
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3846
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3847
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3848
207. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3849
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 3850
208. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3851
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 3852
209. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3853
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 3854
210. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3855
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 3856
211. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3857
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 3858
212. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3859
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 3860
213. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3861
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7905287). 3862
214. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3863
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 3864
215. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3865
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7874677). 3866
216. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3867
217. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3869
218. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3871
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 3872
219. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3873
220. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3875
221. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3877
222. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3879
223. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3881
224. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3883
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3884
225. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3885
226. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3887
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3888
227. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3889
228. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3891
229. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3893
230. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3895
231. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3897
232. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3899
233. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3901
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3902
234. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3903
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3904
235. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3905
236. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3907
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3908
237. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3909
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3910
238. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3911
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3912
239. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3913
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 3914
240. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3915
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3916
241. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3917
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3918
242. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3919
243. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3921
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3922
244. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3923
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3924
245. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3925
246. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3927
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3928
247. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3929
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 3930
248. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3931
249. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3933
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 3934
250. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3935
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 3936
251. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3937
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 3938
252. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3939
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 3940
253. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3941
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 3942
254. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3943
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 3944
255. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3945
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 3946
256. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3947
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 3948
257. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3949
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 3950
258. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3951
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 3952
259. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3953
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 3954
260. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3955
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 3956
261. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3957
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 3958
262. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3959
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 3960
263. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3961
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 3962
264. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3963
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 3964
265. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3965
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 3966
266. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3967
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 3968
267. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3969
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 3970
268. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3971
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 3972
269. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3973
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 3974
270. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3975
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 3976
271. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3977
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 3978
272. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3979
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 3980
273. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3981
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 3982
274. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3983
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 3984
275. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3985
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 3986
276. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3987
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 3988
277. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3989
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 3990
278. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3991
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3992
279. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3993
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 3994
280. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3995
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 3996
281. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3997
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 3998
282. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3999
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4000
283. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4001
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4002
284. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4003
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4004
285. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4005
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4006
286. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4007
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4008
287. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4009
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4010
288. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4011
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4012
289. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4013
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4014
290. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4015
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4016
291. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4017
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4018
292. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4019
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4020
293. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4021
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4022
294. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4023
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4024
295. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4025
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4026
296. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4027
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4028
297. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4029
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4030
298. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4031
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4032
299. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4033
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4034
300. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4035
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4036
301. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4037
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4038
302. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4039
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4040
303. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4041
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4042
304. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4043
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4044
305. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4045
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4046
306. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4047
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4048
307. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4049
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4050
308. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4051
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4052
309. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4053
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4054
310. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4055
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4056
311. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4057
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4058
312. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4059
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4060
313. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4061
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4062
314. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4063
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4064
315. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4065
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4066
316. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4067
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4068
317. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4069
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4070
318. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4071
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4072
319. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4073
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4074
320. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4075
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4076
321. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4077
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4078
322. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4079
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4080
323. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4081
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4082
324. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4083
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4084
325. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4085
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4086
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Con by Hyper Conceit of Connective Dominating in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super Con by Hyper Conceit of Connective Dominating in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective Dominating In

Preprint · June 2023

488 PUBLICATIONS 19,061 CITATIONS

On Combinatorics View project

Featured Articles View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 2

Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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

the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 58