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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371681570
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8052893
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
490 PUBLICATIONS 19,423 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic Graphs View project
On Combinatorics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 18 June 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As 3
Hyper Conceit On Super Con 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10
S is a Equal 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-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating criteria holds 14
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 : ∃Vc ∈ VN SHG , Vc ∈ Ea , Eb

And ∀Ea ∈ EN SHG : (T (E), I(E), F (E)) =
maximum number of Neutrosophic strength of
SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi
to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s.;
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating criteria holds 16

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

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

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective 23
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 24
v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective 25
Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic 26
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 27
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 28
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective 29
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 30
Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 32
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 33
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 34
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 35
Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective 36
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 37
re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 38
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 39
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 40
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 41
of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 42
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual 43
Connective Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 44
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 45
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 47
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 48
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 49
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 50
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 51
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 52
and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 53
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 54
e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 55
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual 56
Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 57
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 58
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 59
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 60
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 61
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective 62
Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an 63
Extreme V-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 64
e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 65
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual 66
Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 67
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 68
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 69
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 70
Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEqual Connective 71
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 72
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 74
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 76
of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 77
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 78
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; an Extreme V-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 79
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 80
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual 81
Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) 82
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 83
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 84
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an 85
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 86
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 87
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 88
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 89
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 90
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual 91
Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) 92
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 93
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 94
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 95
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 96
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 97
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective 98
Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In 99
this scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 100
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 101
Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes 102
further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 103
on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 104
whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 105
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 106
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 107
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 108
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 109
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 110
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 111
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 112
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 113
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 114
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 115
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 116
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 117
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 118
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 119
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 120
δ−SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 121
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 122
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 123
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 124
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 125
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 126
is a maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 127
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 128
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 129
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 130
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 131
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 132
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 133
version of a SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating . Since there’s more ways to get 134
type-results to make a SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating more understandable. For the 135
sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, there’s a need to 136
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices 137
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 138
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 139
Assume a SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 140
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The 141
Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to 142
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The 143
Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The 144
SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The 145
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum 146
Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of 147
Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the 148
next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperEqual Connective 149
Dominating . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous 150
definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperEqual 151
Connective Dominating until the SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, then it’s officially called a 152
“SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperEqual Connective 153
Dominating . There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition 154
titled a “SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and 155
discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 156
SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating . For the sake of having a 157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion 158
of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating” and a “Neutrosophic 159
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 160
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 161
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 162
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 163
Table holds. And a SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 164
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 165
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 166
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 167
more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 168
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 169
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 170
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 171
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating”, “Neutrosophic 172
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 173
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 174
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating” 175
where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperEqual 176
Connective Dominating amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 177
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating .] SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating . A graph is a 178
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 179
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 180
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 181
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperEqual 182
Connective Dominating if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 183
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 184
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 185
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 186
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 187
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 188
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 189
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 190
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 191
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 192
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 193
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 194
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 195
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 196
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 197
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 198
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 199
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 200
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 201
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 202
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 203
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 204
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 205
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 206
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 207
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 208
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 209
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 210
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEqual Connective 211
Dominating, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 212
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperEqual Connective 213
Dominating or the strongest SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating in those Neutrosophic 214
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, called 215
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, and the strongest SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 216
called Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, some general results are 217
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only 218
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 219
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. There isn’t 220
any formation of any SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating but literarily, it’s the 221
deformation of any SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it 222
doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 223
theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 224
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 225
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 226
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 227
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 228
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 229
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 230
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 231
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 232
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 233
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 234
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 235
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 236
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 237
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 238
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 239
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 240
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 241
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 242
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 243
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 244
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 245
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 246
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 247
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 248
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 249
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 250
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 251
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 252
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 253
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 254
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 255
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 256
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 257
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 258
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 259
formally called “ SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 260
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 261
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 262
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 263
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 264
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 265
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 266
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 267
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 268
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 269
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 270
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 271
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 272
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 273
either the optimal SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating or the Neutrosophic 274
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 275
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 276
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 277
since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 278
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperEqual 279
Connective Dominating but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperEqual Connective 280
Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 281
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 282
find the “ amount of SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating” of either individual of cells or the 283
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 284
of SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 285
group of cells? 286
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 287
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 288
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 289
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ SuperHyperEqual 290
Connective Dominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating” on 291
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 292
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 293
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 294
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 295
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 296
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 297
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 298
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 299
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 300
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 301
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 302
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 303
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperEqual Connective 304
Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, are figured out in sections “ 305
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating”. 306
In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Equal Connective Dominating to make sense 307
about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 308
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 309
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 310
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going 311
back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 312
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 313
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 314
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 315
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 316
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 317
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 318
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating”, 319
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 320
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 321
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 322
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 323
presented in section, “ SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating”. The keyword of this research 324
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 325
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 326
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 327
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 328
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 329
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 330
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 331
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 332
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 333
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 334
Research On the Redeemed Ways 335
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 336
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 337
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.5,p.2), 338
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 339
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 340
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 341
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [1],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 342
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 343
(Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 344
to Ref. [208]. 345
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 346
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 347
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.1,p.1). 348
Let X be a Equal 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 349
+
]− 0, 1 [. 350
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2). 351
Let X be a Equal 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 352
2.5,p.2). 353
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 354
pair S = (V, E), where 355
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 356
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 357
1, 2, . . . , n); 358
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 359
V; 360
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 361
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 362
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 363
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 364
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 365
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 366
(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 . 367
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 368
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 369
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 370
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 371
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 372
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 373
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 374
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 375
the ii0 th element of the Equal Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic 376
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 377
and E are crisp sets. 378
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 379
(Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3). 380
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 381
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 382
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 383
characterized as follow-up items. 384
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 385
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 386
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 387
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 388
HyperEdge; 389
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 390
SuperEdge; 391
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 392
SuperHyperEdge. 393
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 394
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 395
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3). 396
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 397
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 398
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 399
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 400
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 401
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 402
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)). 403
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 404
pair S = (V, E), where 405
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 406
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 407
1, 2, . . . , n); 408
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 409
V; 410
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 411
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 412
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 413
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 414
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 415
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ).
P
(viii) i0 416
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 417
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 418
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 419
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 420
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 421
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 422
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 423
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 424
the ii0 th element of the Equal Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic 425
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 426
and E are crisp sets. 427
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 428
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 430
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 431
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 432
characterized as follow-up items. 433
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 434
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 435
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 436
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 437
HyperEdge; 438
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 439
SuperEdge; 440
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 441
SuperHyperEdge. 442
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 443
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 444
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 445
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 446
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 447
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 448
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 449
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 450
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 451
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 452
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 453
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 454
given SuperHyperEdges; 455
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 456
SuperHyperEdges; 457
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 458
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 459
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 460
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 461
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 462
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 463
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 464
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 465
common SuperVertex. 466
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 467
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 468
of following conditions hold: 469
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 470
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 471
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 478
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 479
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 480
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). a

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 481
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 482
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 483
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 484
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 485
SuperHyperPath . 486
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 487
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 489
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 490
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 491
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 492
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 493
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 494
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 495
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 496
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 497
(ix) Neutrosophic t-Connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 498
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 499
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 500
(x) Neutrosophic i-Connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 501
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 502
(xi) Neutrosophic f-Connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 504
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 505
(xii) Neutrosophic Connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 507
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 508
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 509
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 510
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual 511
Connective Dominating). 512
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 514
either V 0 or E 0 is called 515
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the following expression 516
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating criteria holds 517

(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the following 518
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 519
criteria holds 520

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 521
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the following expression 522
is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating criteria holds 523

(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the following 524
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 525
criteria holds 526

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 527
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if it’s either of 528
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual 529
Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, and 530
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 531
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating). 532
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 535
e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective 536
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic 537
rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 538
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 539
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 540
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 541
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 542
Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 543
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if it’s either of 544
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 547
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 549
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 550
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 551
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 552
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if 553
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 554
re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective 555
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) 556
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 557
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 559
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 560
Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; and the Extreme power is 562
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 563
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 564
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual 565
Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 566
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 568
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 569
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 570
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 571
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 572
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to 574
its Neutrosophic coefficient; 575
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if it’s either of 576
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 579
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 582
Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 584
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if it’s either of 585
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 588
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 590
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 593
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 594
Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 598
Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 599
Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 600
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 601
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 602
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; and the Extreme 603
power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 604
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 605
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 609
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 610
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 612
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to 615
its Neutrosophic coefficient. 616
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating). 617
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 618
(i) an δ−SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of 619
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating such that either of the following 620
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 621
s∈S: 622
|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 623
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 624
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind 625
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating such that either of the following 626
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 627
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 628
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 629
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 630
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 631
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, there’s a 632
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 633
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 634
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 635
assign to the values. 636
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)
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 637
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 638
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 639
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 640
understandable. 641
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 642
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 643
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 644
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 645
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 646
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 647
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 648
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 649
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual 650
. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic

Connective Dominating 651
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 652
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, there’s a 653
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective 654
Dominating”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the 655
labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 656
position of labels to assign to the values. 657
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. It’s redefined a 658
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 659
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But AsEqual Connective Dominating 660
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 661
Forms 662
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 663

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V 665
is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 666
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 667
probability of A. 668
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 669
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 671
called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 672
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 673
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 674
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 675
criteria 676
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)

Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 677
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Any k-function Equal Connective Dominating 679
like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Equal Connective 680
Dominating like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 681
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 682
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 683
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 685
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 686
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 687
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 688
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. A Neutrosophic number is called 690
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 691
Crossing criteria 692
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 693
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let m and n 694
propose special Equal Connective Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 695
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 696
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 697
Neutrosophic independently with probability Equal Connective Dominating p := 4n/m, and set 698
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 699
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 700
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
701
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 702
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let P be a 703
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 704
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 705
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 706
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 707
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points 708
on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 709
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 710
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 711
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 712
2 3
again l < 32n /k . 713
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let P be a 715
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 716
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 717
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 718
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 719
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 720
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 721
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
722
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 723
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on 724
the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 725
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 726
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 727
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 728
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 729
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 730
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 731
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 732
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 733
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let X be a 734
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 735
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. 736
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 737
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let Xn be a 738
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Equal Connective Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 739
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 740
Proof. 741
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. A special 743
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 744
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph 746
in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 747
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 748
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 749
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 750
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 751
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 752
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 753
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 754
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 755
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: 756
k+1
n
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 757
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 758
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 759
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 760
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 761
stability number at most k. 762
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 763
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 765
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 766
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 767
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let X be a 769
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 770
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let X be a Neutrosophic 772
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 773
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
774
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let Xn be a 776
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Equal Connective Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 777
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 778
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Set X := Xn and 780
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 781
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 782
when Xn = 0. 783
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 785
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 786
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 787
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 788
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. As in the proof of related 790
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 791
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 793
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 794
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 795
or 796
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 797
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. The latter is 799
straightforward. 800
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 801
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 803
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 804
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 805
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 806
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 807
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 808
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 810
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 811
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 812
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. Let F be a 814
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 815
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 816
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 817
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Connective Dominating. The latter is 819
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 821
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 822
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 823
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 824
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 825
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 826
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 827
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 828
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 829
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 830
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 831
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 832
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Equal Connective Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Equal Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
833
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 836
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 837
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 838
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 839
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 840
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 841
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 842

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

843
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 846

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
847

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


851

{E2 }.
= z 6−c .
{V5 }.
= z 7−c .

855

{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
859

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

863

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
867

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



871

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
875

{E1 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 , V6 }.
= z 5−a .
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)
879

{E1 }.
= z 5−a .
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }.
= z 5−a .
883

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E9 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 , V6 }.
= z 5−a .
887

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .
891

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
895

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 }.
= z 2−a .
899

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
903

{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
907

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }3i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2i+1 }5i=0 .
= z 2−a .
911

{E6 }.
= z 4−a .
{V1 }.
= z 6−a .

(16.3)
915

{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .
919

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .
923
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 924
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 925
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating if for any of them, and any of other 926
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 927
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 928
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 929
amount of them. 930
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 931
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 932
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 933
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating minus all Neutrosophic 934
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 935
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 936
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating, minus 937
all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 938
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Equal Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective 939
Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 940
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 941
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 942
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 943
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating in 944
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 945
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 946
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating. 947
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Equal Connective Dominating has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Equal Connective Dominating with the least Neutrosophic 948
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 949
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 950
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 951
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualConnectiveDominating

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualConnectiveDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−EqualConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Equal Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, 952
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Equal Connective 953
Dominating is the cardinality of 954

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualConnectiveDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−EqualConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Equal Connective
Dominating since neither amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor amount of
SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of

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

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

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

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

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Equal 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 955
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 956
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 957
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 958
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 959
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 960
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 961
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 962
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating decorates

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
but at least two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices make the Neutrosophic version of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the Neutrosophic setting of non-obvious
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge.
It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as Neutrosophic adjective for
the initial Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no Neutrosophic appearance
of the loop Neutrosophic version of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The Neutrosophic adjective
“loop” on the basic Neutrosophic framework engages one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex but it never happens in this Neutrosophic setting. With these
Neutrosophic bases, on a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least a Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective
Dominating has the Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a
Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating has the Neutrosophic cardinality at least a

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 963
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 964
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 965
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 966
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 967
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

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

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

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

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong
to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 968
Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
969
Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating =

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Equal 970
Connective Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 971
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 972
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 973
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 974
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating in 975
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 976
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 977
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective 978
Dominating. 979
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 980
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 981
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 982
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 983
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 984
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 985
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 986
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 987
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 988
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 989
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 990
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating where 991
the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 992
literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Equal Connective Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of 993
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 994
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 995
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 996
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 997
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 998
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 999
Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1000
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1001
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1002
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1003
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct 1004
types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective 1005
Dominating. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one 1006
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the 1007
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In 1008
the embedded Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior 1009
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 1010
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 1011
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1012
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1013
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1014
R-Equal Connective Dominating. The Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating with the exclusion of 1015
the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1016
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating with 1017
the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1018
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating. To sum them up, in 1019
a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 1020
one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1021
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1022
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor 1023
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique 1024
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic 1025
SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating, minus all 1026
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1027
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating has two titles. a 1028
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1029
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1030
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating with 1031
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1032
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1033
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1034
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominatings for all Neutrosophic 1035
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1036
Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of 1037
the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating, again and more in the operations of 1038
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominatings acted on the all possible 1039
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic 1040
number. This Neutrosophic number is 1041
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Equal Connective 1042
Dominatings. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1043
GNeutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1044
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating. Then 1045
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating is 1046
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1047
GNeutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number
{SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1048
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating. 1049
GNeutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1050
Equal Connective Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1051

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1052

= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1053


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1054
GNeutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class

1055

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

1056


1057


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1058
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1059
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1060
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1061
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Equal Connective Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the 1062
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Equal Connective Dominating” since “Neutrosophic 1063
Quasi-Equal Connective Dominating” happens “Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating” in a 1064
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1065
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic Equal Connective 1066
Dominating” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily 1067
background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1068
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1069
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-Equal Connective Dominating”, 1070
and “Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating” are up. 1071
Thus, let 1072
zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1073
GNeutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1074
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating and the new terms 1075
are up. 1076
GNeutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1077

{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1078

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1079

And with go back to initial structure, 1080
GNeutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class

1081

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1082


1083


Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1084
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Connective 1085
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic 1086
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1087
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all 1088
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1089
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1090
are coming up. 1091
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Dominating
Is an Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1092
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1093
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1094
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic 1095
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1096
Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating is related to the Neutrosophic

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

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

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

. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
Connective Dominating
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1097
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1098
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1099
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1100
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating and it’s an 1101
Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1102
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Equal Connective Dominating, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1103
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1104
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1105
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1106
“Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating” 1107
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1108
Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating, 1109
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic Equal
Connective Dominating, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1110
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1111
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1112
quasi-R-Equal Connective Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1113
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1114
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1115
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1116
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1117
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1118
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1119
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1120
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1121
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1122
Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1123
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1124
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1125
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1126
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1127
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1128
R-Equal Connective Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1129
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1131
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1132
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1133
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1134
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1135
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1136
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1137
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1138
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1139
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1140
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1141
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1142
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1143
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating, VESHE is up. The obvious 1144
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating, 1145
VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1146
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1147
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1148
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1149
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1150
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1151
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1152
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1153
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1154
Neutrosophic R-Equal Connective Dominating only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1155
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1156
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1157
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1158
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1159
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1160
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1161
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Equal Connective Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1162
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1163
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1164
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating. The 1165
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1166

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−EqualConnectiveDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−EqualConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Equal Connective 1167
. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Dominating 1168
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1169

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1170
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1171
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1173
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1174
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1175
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1176
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating 1177
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1178
Equal Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two 1179
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1180
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1181

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1182
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1183
Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1184
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1185

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Equal 1186
. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1188

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1189
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1190
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1191
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1192
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating and it’s an 1193
Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1194
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1196
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1197
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1198
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1199
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1200

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating, 1201

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Equal 1202
, not:

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1204

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1205
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1206
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1207
“Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating ” 1208
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1209
Neutrosophic Equal Connective Dominating , 1210
is only and only 1211

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1212
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1213
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1214
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1215
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1216
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1217
Then 1218

|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 1219
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1220
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1221
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1222
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 1223
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1224
The latter is straightforward. 1225
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1226
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1227
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1228
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1229
Then 1230

|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 1231
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1232
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1233
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1234

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1238
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1239
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1240
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1242
Then 1243

{Ei }.
= z |Ei | .
{CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1244
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

1245
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1246
There’s a new way to redefine as 1247

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1251
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1252
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1253
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1254
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective 1255
Dominating. 1256
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1257
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1258

|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 1259
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
1260
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1261
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1262

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperEqual Connective 1265
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1266
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating could be applied. There are only two 1267
SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the 1268
representative in the 1269
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1270
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1271
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1272
solution 1273
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1275
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1276
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1277
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1278
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1279
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1280
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1281
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1282

|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 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating in the Example
(16.11)
Proof. Let 1283
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
1284
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 1286

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperEqual Connective 1289
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1290
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1291
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating in the Example (16.13)
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1292
the 1293
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1294
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1295
solution 1297
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1299
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1300
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1301
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1302
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1303
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1304
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1305
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1306
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1307

{Ei }.
= z |Ei | .
{CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1308
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1309
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1311

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperEqual Connective 1314
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1315
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded 1316
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating proposes some longest SuperHyperEqual Connective 1317
Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1318
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1320
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1321
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1322
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1323
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1325
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1326
For the SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective 1327
Dominating, and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, some general results 1328
are introduced. 1329
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating is 1330
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1331
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. Then 1332
N eutrosophic SuperHyperEqualConnectiveDominating =
{theSuperHyperEqualConnectiveDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEqualConnectiveDominating
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEqualConnectiveDominating. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1333
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1334
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1335
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1336
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and 1337
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating coincide. 1338
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1340
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperEqual Connective 1341
Dominating. 1342
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1344
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1345
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1346
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective 1347
Dominating is its SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and reversely. 1348
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEqual Connective 1349
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1350
SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1351
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating is its SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and reversely. 1352
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1353
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEqual Connective 1354
Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1355
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1356
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1357
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1358

Dominating 1360
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating isn’t 1361
well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1362
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1363
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEqual Connective 1364
Dominating is well-defined. 1365
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1366
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1367
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating is well-defined. 1368

Dominating 1370
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating is well-defined 1371
if and only if its SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating is well-defined. 1372
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1373
is 1374
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1375
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1376
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1377
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1378
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1379
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1380
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1381
∅ is 1382
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1383
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1384
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1385
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1386
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1387
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1388
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1389
independent SuperHyperSet is 1390
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1391
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1392
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1393
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1394
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1395
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1396
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1397
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1398
a maximal 1399
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1400
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1401
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1402
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1403
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1404
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1405
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1406
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1407
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1408
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1409
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1410
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1411
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1412
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1413
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1414
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1415
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1417
number of 1418
(i) : the SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1419
(ii) : the SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1420
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1421
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1422
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1423
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1424
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1425
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1426
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1428
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1429
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1430
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1431
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1432
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1433
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1434
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1435
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1438
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1439
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1440
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1441
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1445
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1446
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1447
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1450
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1451
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1452
is a 1453
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1457
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1458
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1459
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1462
number of 1463
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1467
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1468
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1469
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1470
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1471
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1472
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1474
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1475
(iv) : SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1479
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1480
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1481
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1482
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1483
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1484
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1485
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1486
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1490
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective 1492
Dominating. 1493
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1495
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1496
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1500
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1501
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1502
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1504
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1506
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1507
of a dual 1508
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1512
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1513
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1514
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1516
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1517
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1518
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective 1524
Dominating. 1525
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1526
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1527
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1528
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1529
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1530
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1531
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, then 1532
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1533
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1534
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1535
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1536
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, then 1537
(i) S is SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating set; 1538
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1539
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1540
Then 1541
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1542
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1543
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1544
which is connected. Then 1545
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1546
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1547
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1548
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1549
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1550
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1551
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1552
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1553
a dual SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1554
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1555
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective 1556
Dominating; 1557
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1558
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1559
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1560
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1561
dual SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1562
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. Then 1563
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1564
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1566
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1567
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1568
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1569
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. Then 1571
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1572
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1574
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1575
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1576
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1578
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1579
(ii) Γ = 1; 1580
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1581
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperEqual Connective 1582
Dominating. 1583
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1584
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1585
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1586
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1587
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1588
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1589
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1590
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1591
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual 1592
Connective Dominating; 1593
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1594
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1595
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1596
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1598
bn
2c
Connective Dominating; 1600
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1601
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 1602
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1603
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1605
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1606
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1607
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating for N SHF; 1608
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1609
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1610
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperEqual 1611
Connective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1612
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1613
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1614
SuperHyperSet. Then 1615
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1616
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating for N SHF; 1617
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1618
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1619
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperEqual Connective 1620
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1621
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1622
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1623
SuperHyperSet. Then 1624
bn
2c
Connective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1626
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1627
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1628
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only dual maximal SuperHyperEqual Connective 1629
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1630
Then following statements hold; 1632
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1633
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, then S is an 1634
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1635
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1636
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, then S is a dual 1637
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1638
Then following statements hold; 1640
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1641
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, then S is an 1642
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1643
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1644
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, then S is a dual 1645
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1646
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1647
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1648
statements hold; 1649
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1650
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1651
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1652
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1654
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1656
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1657
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1658
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1659
statements hold; 1660
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1661
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1663
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1665
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1667
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1668
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1670
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1671
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1672
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1674
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1676
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1679
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1681
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1682
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1683
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1685
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1687
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; 1688
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1690
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperEqual 1692
Connective Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1693
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1694
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1696
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1698
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1701
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperEqual 1703
Connective Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1704
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1705
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1707
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1709
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. 1712
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1713
Neutrosophic Recognition 1714
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1715
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1716
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1717
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1718
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1719
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1720
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1721
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1722
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1723
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1724
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1725
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1726
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1727
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1728
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1729
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1730
happened and what’s done. 1731
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1732
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1733
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1734
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1735
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 1736
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 1737
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual 1738
Connective Dominating or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating in those 1739
Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1740
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1741
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1742
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1743
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1744
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1745
featured. 1746
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1747
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1748
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1749
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1750
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1751
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1753
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1754
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1755
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1756
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1757
Neutrosophic featured. 1758
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1759
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1760
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1761
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1762
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1763
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1765
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1766
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1767
The SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective 1768
Dominating are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1769
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1770
recognitions? 1771
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperEqual Connective 1772
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating?

Dominating 1773
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1774
compute them? 1775
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1776
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating? 1777
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and the Neutrosophic 1778
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1779
they’re based on SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, are there else? 1780
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1781
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1782
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1783
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1784
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1785
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1786
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1787
highlighted. 1788
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1789
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1790
SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1791
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1792
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1793
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, finds the convenient 1794
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1795
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1796
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1797
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1798
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1799
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1800
the SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective 1801
Dominating. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way 1802
through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the 1803
notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1804
are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the 1805
background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, 1806
full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel 1807
proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the 1808
cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the 1809
architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating” in the themes of 1810
jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded 1811
styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6),
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1812
benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1813
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1814
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1815
Forms 1816
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1817
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1821
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1822
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1823
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1824
|Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1825
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1826
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1827
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1828
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1829
|Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1830
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1831
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1832
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1833
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1834
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1837
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1839
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1840
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1841
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1842
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1844
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1845
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1848
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1852
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1853
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1854
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1855
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1856
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1861
Extreme coefficient; 1862
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1863
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1864
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1866
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1867
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1872
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1873
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1874
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1879
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1881
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1882
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1889
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1890
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1895
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1896
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1898
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1900
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1909
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1910
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1914
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1915
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1916
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1917
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1918
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1919
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1920
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1921
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1924
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1925
SuperHyperDuality. 1930


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1993
ESHP : (V, E). Then 1994
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1995
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1999
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2003
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2004
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2005
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 2006
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2017
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2018
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2028
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2031
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 2036
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2037
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2038
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2039
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2040
solution 2043
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2050

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2053
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2054

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2060
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2065
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2073
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 2075
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2076
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2077
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2078

∃!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 2083
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2084
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2091
Forms 2093
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2094
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2098
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2099
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2100
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2101
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2103
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2104
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2105
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2106
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2108
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2109
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2110
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2111
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2114
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2115
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2116
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2121
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2122
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2124
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2129
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2130
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2131
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2132
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2133
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2138
coefficient; 2139
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2140
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2143
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2145
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2149
coefficient; 2150
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2151
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2154
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2155
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2158
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2159
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2166
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2167
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2175
coefficient; 2176
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2177
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2183
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2186
coefficient. 2187
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2191
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2192
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2193
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2194
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2195
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2196
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2197
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2198
SuperHyperJoin. 2199
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

.
Proof. Let 2273
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2277
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2281

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

.
Proof. Let 2284
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2295
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2296

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2306
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2309
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 2314
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2315
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2316
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2318
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2319
solution 2321
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2328

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2331
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2332

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2336
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2337
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2338
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2343
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2351

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

.
Proof. Let 2354
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2355

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2359
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2360
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2361
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2362
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2369
Forms 2371
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2372
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2376
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2377
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2378
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2379
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2381
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2382
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2383
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2384
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2386
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2387
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2388
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2389
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2392
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2394
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2397
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2399
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2400
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2407
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2408
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2409
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2410
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2416
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2418
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2419
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2427
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2429
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2434
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2436
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2437
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2444
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2445
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2453
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2455
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2464
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2469
SuperHyperPerfect. 2477
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2551
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2555
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2559
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2562
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2573
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2574

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2584
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2587
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 2592
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2593
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2594
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2595
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2596
solution 2599
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2606

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2609
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2610

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2614
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2615
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2616
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2621
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2629
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2632

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2633

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2637
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2638
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2639
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2640
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2647
Forms 2649
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2650
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2654
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2655
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2656
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2657
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2659
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2660
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2661
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2662
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2664
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2665
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2666
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2667
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2670
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2672
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2677
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2678
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2680
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2685
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2686
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2687
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2694
coefficient; 2695
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2696
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2705
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2707
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2714
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2715
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2722
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2723
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2731
coefficient; 2732
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2733
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2739
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2742
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2747
SuperHyperTotal. 2755
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2829
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2833
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2837
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2840
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2851
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2852
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2862
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2865
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2870
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2871
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2874
solution 2877
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2884

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2887
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2888

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2892
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2893
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2899
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2907
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2910
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2911

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2915
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2916
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2917
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2918
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2925
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2926
Forms 2927
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2928
SuperHyperConnected). 2929
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2933
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2934
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2935
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2936
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2937
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2938
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2940
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2941
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2942
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2943
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2944
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2945
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2947
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2948
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2949
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2950
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2953
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2955
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2956
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2957
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2958
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2960
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2961
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2964
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2965
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2968
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2969
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2970
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2971
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2972
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2973
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2974
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2975
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2976
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2977
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2978
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2979
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2980
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2981
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2982
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 2983
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 2984
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2985
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 2986
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 2987
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2988
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2989
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2990
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2993
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2994
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 2995
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 2996
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2997
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2998
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3001
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3002
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3005
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3006
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3009
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 3010
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 3011
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3012
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 3013
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3015
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3017
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3020
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 3021
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 3022
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3023
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3026
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3027
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3031
SuperHyperConnected. 3039
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3113
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3117
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3121
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3124
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3135
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3136
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3146
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3149
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3154
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3155
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3158
solution 3161
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3168
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3171
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3176
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3177
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3183
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3191
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3194
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3196

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3199
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3200
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3201
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3202
17 Background 3210
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3211
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3212
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3213
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3214
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3215
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3216
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3217
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3218
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3219
with pages 32-55. 3220
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3221
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3222
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3223
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3224
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3225
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3226
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3227
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3228
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3229
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3230
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3231
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3232
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3233
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3234
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3235
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3236
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3237
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3238
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3239
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3240
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3241
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3242
SuperHyperNumbers. 3243
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3244
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3245
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3246
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3247
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3248
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3249
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3250
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3251
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3252
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3253
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3254
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3255
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3256
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3257
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3258
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3259
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3260
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3261
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3262
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3263
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3264
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3265
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3266
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3267
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3268
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3269
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3270
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3271
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3272
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3273
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3274
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3275
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3276
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3277
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3278
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3279
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3280
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3281
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3282
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3283
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3284
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3285
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3286
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3287
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3288
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3289
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3290
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3291
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3292
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3293
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3294
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3295
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3296
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3297
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3298
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3299
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3300
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3301
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3302
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3303
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3304
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3305
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3306
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3307
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3308
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3309
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3310
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3311
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3312
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3313
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3314
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3315
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3316
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3317
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3318
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3319
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [178] by Henry 3320
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3321
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3322
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [179] by Henry Garrett 3323
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3324
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3325
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [180] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3326
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3327
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3328
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [181] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3329
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3330
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [184] by 3331
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3332
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3333
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [185] by Henry 3334
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3335
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3336
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [188] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3337
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3338
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [191] by Henry 3339
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3340
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3341
in Ref. [192] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3342
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3343
Ref. [193] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3344
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3345
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [194] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3346
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3347
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [195] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3348
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3349
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [196] by Henry Garrett 3350
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3351
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [207] by Henry 3352
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3353
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3354
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [208] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [?, 4–208], there 3355
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3356
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3357
at [209–326]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3358
readers, 4190 and 5189 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [327, 328]. 3359
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3360
proposed as book in Ref. [327] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3361
Scholar and has more than 4331 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3362
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3363
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3364
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3365
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3366
proposed as book in Ref. [328] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3367
Scholar and has more than 5327 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3368
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3369
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3370
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3371
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3372
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3373
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3374
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3375
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3376
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [?, 4–208] 3377
alongside scientific research books at [209–326]. Two popular scientific research books 3378
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4331 and 5327 respectively, on neutrosophic 3379
science is on [327, 328]. 3380
References 3381
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3382
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3383
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3384
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3385
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3386
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3387
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3388
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3389
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3390
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3391
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3392
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3393
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3394
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3395
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3396
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3397
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3398
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3399
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3400
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3401
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3402
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3403
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3404
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3405
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3406
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3407
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3408
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3409
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3410
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3411
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3412
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3413
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3414
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3415
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3416
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3417
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3418
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3419
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3420
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3421
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3422
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3423
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3424
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3425
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3426
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3427
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3428
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3429
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3430
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3431
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3432
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3433
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3434
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3435
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3436
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3437
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3438
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3439
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3440
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3441
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3442
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3443
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3444
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3445
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3446
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3447
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3448
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3449
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3450
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3451
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3452
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3453
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3454
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3455
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3456
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3457
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3458
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3459
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3460
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3461
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3463
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3467
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3468
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3469
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3470
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3471
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3472
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3473
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3474
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3475
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3476
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3477
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3478
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3479
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3480
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3481
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3482
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3483
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3484
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3485
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3486
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super 3488
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346). 3489
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 3490
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3491
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051360). 3492
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3494
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3496
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3497
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3500
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3501
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3502
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3503
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3504
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3506
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3507
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3508
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3509
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3510
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3512
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3514
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3515
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943578). 3516
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3518
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3519
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3520
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3522
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3524
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3525
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3526
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3527
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3530
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3531
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3532
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3533
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3534
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3535
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3536
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3538
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3539
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3541
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3544
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3547
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3550
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3551
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3553
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3556
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3558
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3559
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3562
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3565
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3568
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3569
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3571
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3574
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3575
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3577
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3580
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3583
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3586
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3589
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3592
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3593
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3595
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3596
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3598
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3599
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3601
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3604
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3607
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3608
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3610
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3613
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3614
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3615
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3617
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3618
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3620
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3621
70. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3622
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3623
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3626
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3629
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3630
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3632
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3633
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3635
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3638
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3641
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3644
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3647
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3650
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3653
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3656
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3659
83. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3661
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3662
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3663
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3665
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3668
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3669
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3670
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3672
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3674
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3677
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3680
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3681
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3683
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3684
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3686
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3687
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3688
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3689
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3690
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3692
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3695
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3698
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3699
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3701
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3704
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3706
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3708
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3710
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3712
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3713
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3716
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3718
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3719
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3722
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3724
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3726
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3728
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3730
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3731
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3734
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3735
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3737
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3740
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3742
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3744
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3746
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3747
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3749
113. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3751
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3753
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3755
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3756
115. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3757
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3758
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3759
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3761
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3762
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3763
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3764
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3767
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3769
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3770
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3773
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3775
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3776
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3779
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3781
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3783
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3785
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3786
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3787
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3788
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3791
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3792
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3793
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3794
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3797
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3798
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3799
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3800
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3803
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3804
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3805
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3806
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3809
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3810
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3811
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3812
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3815
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3816
135. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3817
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3818
136. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3820
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3821
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3824
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3825
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3826
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3827
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3830
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3831
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3832
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3833
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3836
142. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3838
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3839
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3842
144. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3844
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3845
145. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3847
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3848
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3851
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3854
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3856
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3857
149. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3859
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3860
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3862
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3863
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3864
151. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3865
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3866
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3867
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3868
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3869
153. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3871
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3872
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3873
154. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3874
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3875
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3876
155. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3877
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3878
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3879
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3880
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3883
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3884
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3887
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3888
158. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3889
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3891
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3892
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3895
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3896
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3899
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3900
161. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3901
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3902
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3903
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3904
162. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3905
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3906
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3907
163. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3908
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3909
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3910
164. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3911
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3912
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3913
165. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3914
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3915
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3916
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3917
166. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3918
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3919
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3920
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3921
167. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3922
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3923
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3924
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3925
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3926
168. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3927
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3928
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3929
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3930
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3931
169. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3932
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3933
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3934
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3935
170. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3936
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3937
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3938
171. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3939
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3940
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3942
172. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3943
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3944
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3945
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3946
173. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3947
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3948
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3949
174. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3950
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3951
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3952
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3953
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3954
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3955
175. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3956
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3957
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3958
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3959
176. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3960
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3961
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3962
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3963
177. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3964
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3965
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3966
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3967
178. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3968
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3969
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3970
179. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3971
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3972
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3973
180. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3975
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3976
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3977
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3978
181. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3979
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3980
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3981
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3982
182. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3983
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3984
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3985
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3986
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3988
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3989
184. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3990
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3991
185. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3993
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3994
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3995
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4000
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4004
188. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4005
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4006
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4007
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4008
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4011
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4013
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4014
191. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4015
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4016
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4019
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4020
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4022
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4023
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4026
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4027
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4029
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4030
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4033
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4034
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4036
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4037
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 4039
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4044
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4045
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 4049
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 4050
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4053
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 4056
203. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4057
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4058
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4059
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4060
204. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4061
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4062
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4063
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 4064
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4067
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4068
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4071
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 4072
207. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4073
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4074
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4075
208. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4076
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4077
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4078
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4079
209. Henry Garrett, “Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4080
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051368). 4081
210. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4082
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 4083
211. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4084
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 4085
212. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4086
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 4087
213. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4088
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 4089
214. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4090
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 4091
215. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4092
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 4093
216. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4094
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7905287). 4095
217. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4096
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 4097
218. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4098
219. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4100
220. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4102
221. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4104
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 4105
222. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4106
223. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4108
224. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4110
225. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4112
226. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4114
227. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4116
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4117
228. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4118
229. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4120
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4121
230. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4122
231. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4124
232. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4126
233. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4128
234. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4130
235. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4132
236. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4134
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4135
237. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4136
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4137
238. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4138
239. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4140
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4141
240. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4142
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4143
241. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4144
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4145
242. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4146
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4147
243. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4148
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4149
244. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4150
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4151
245. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4152
246. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4154
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4155
247. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4156
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4157
248. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4158
249. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4160
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4161
250. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4162
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4163
251. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4164
252. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4166
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4167
253. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4168
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4169
254. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4170
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4171
255. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4172
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4173
256. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4174
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4175
257. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4176
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4177
258. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4178
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4179
259. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4180
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4181
260. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4182
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4183
261. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4184
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4185
262. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4186
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4187
263. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4188
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4189
264. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4190
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4191
265. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4192
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4193
266. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4194
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4195
267. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4196
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4197
268. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4198
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4199
269. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4200
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4201
270. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4202
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4203
271. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4204
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4205
272. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4206
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4207
273. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4208
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4209
274. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4210
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4211
275. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4212
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4213
276. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4214
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4215
277. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4216
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4217
278. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4218
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4219
279. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4220
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4221
280. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4222
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4223
281. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4224
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4225
282. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4226
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4227
283. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4228
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4229
284. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4230
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4231
285. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4232
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4233
286. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4234
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4235
287. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4236
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4237
288. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4238
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4239
289. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4240
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4241
290. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4242
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4243
291. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4244
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4245
292. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4246
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4247
293. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4248
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4249
294. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4250
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4251
295. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4252
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4253
296. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4254
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4255
297. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4256
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4257
298. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4258
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4259
299. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4260
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4261
300. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4262
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4263
301. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4264
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4265
302. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4266
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4267
303. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4268
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4269
304. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4270
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4271
305. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4272
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4273
306. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4274
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4275
307. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4276
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4277
308. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4278
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4279
309. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4280
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4281
310. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4282
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4283
311. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4284
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4285
312. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4286
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4287
313. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4288
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4289
314. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4290
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4291
315. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4292
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4293
316. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4294
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4295
317. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4296
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4297
318. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4298
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4299
319. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4300
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4301
320. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4302
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4303
321. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4304
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4305
322. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4306
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4307
323. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4308
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4309
324. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4310
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4311
325. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4312
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4313
326. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4314
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4315
327. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4316
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4317
328. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4318
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4319
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · June 2023

490 PUBLICATIONS 19,423 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic Graphs View project

On Combinatorics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As 3

Hyper Conceit On Super Con 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10

S is a Equal 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-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating criteria holds 14

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

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 15

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective 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-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 18

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating criteria holds 19

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

Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 20

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating criteria holds 21

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

SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective 23

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 24

v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective 25

Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic 26

SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 27

SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 28

SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective 29

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 30

v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective 31

maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 33

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 34

Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Connective 36

Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 37

re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 38

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 39

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 40

cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 41

of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 42

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual 43

Connective Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 44

if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 45

re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 46

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 48

Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 49

cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 50

Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 51

and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 53

SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 54

e-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, 55

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual 56

is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 58

defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 59

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 60

Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 61