New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371756020
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity
Preprint · June 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8067384
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
499 PUBLICATIONS 20,936 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project
Featured Articles View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 21 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 Dimension Dominating As 3
Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity 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 Dimension Dominating). Let a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S be 10
a Equal Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating criteria holds 14
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 : ∃Vc ∈ VN SHG , Vc ∈ Ea , Eb

And ∀Ea , Eb ∈ EN SHG , ∃Ec ∈ E 0 : d(Ea , Ec ) ≥ d(Eb , Ec );
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating criteria holds 16

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

And ∀Va , Vb ∈ VN SHG , ∃Vc ∈ V 0 : d(Va , Vc ) ≥ d(Vb , Vc );
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating criteria holds 21

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 23
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 24
v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 25
Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 29
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 Dimension Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 36
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 37
re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 38
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 43
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating 44
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 45
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual 46
Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) 47
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 48
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 49
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 50
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 51
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 52
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 53
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating 54
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 55
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 58
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 59
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 60
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 61
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 62
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; and the Neutrosophic 63
power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme V-SuperHyperEqual 64
Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 65
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 68
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 69
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges 70
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEqual 71
Dimension Dominating; a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 72
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual 73
Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic 74
rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 75
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 76
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 77
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 78
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 79
Dominating; an Extreme V-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 80
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 81
re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 82
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 83
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 84
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 85
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 86
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 87
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 88
and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 89
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 90
e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 91
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual 92
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 93
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 94
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 95
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 97
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension 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 Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating . Since there’s more ways to get 134
type-results to make a SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating more understandable. For the 135
sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, there’s a need to 136
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 140
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values 141
of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 142
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & 143
The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 144
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of 145
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 146
“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get 147
structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 148
SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating . It’s the main. It’ll be 149
disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of 150
SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating until 151
the SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperEqual 152
Dimension Dominating” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating . There are 153
some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperEqual 154
Dimension Dominating ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there 155
are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 156
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating . For the sake of having a Neutrosophic 157
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 158
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual 159
Dimension Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by 160
the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 161
position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 162
It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a 163
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual 164
Dimension Dominating” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” 165
version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results 166
to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating more understandable. 167
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic 168
SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 169
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 170
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 171
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating”, “Neutrosophic 172
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 173
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 174
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating” 175
where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperEqual 176
Dimension Dominating amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 177
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating .] SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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
Dimension 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 Dimension 211
Dominating, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 212
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperEqual Dimension 213
Dominating or the strongest SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating in those Neutrosophic 214
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, called 215
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, and the strongest SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 216
called Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating. There isn’t 220
any formation of any SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating but literarily, it’s the deformation 221
of any SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A 222
basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating theory, 223
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 224
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 272
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 273
either the optimal SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual 274
Dimension Dominating in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 275
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 276
s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 277
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. There 278
isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating but literarily, it’s the 279
deformation of any SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it 280
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 Dimension 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 Dimension 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
Dimension Dominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating 304
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, are figured out in sections “ 305
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating”. 306
In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Equal Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating”, 319
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension 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. [214]. 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 Dimension 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 Dimension 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 Dimension 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
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 416
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 Dimension 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
Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating if the following expression 516
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating criteria holds 517

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

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

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

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 527
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 528
e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 529
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic 530
rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 531
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating). 532
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 535
e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 536
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic 537
rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating; 543
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 544
Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, and 546
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating; 552
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if 553
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 554
re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 555
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for 556
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 Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is 562
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 563
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating 564
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 565
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 Dimension Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to 574
its Neutrosophic coefficient; 575
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 576
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 579
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 582
Extreme SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 584
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 585
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 588
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 590
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 593
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 594
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 595
re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 596
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for 597
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 598
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 600
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 601
Extreme SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is 603
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 604
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating 605
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 606
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 Dimension Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to 615
its Neutrosophic coefficient. 616
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating). 617
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 618
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
(i) an δ−SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 619
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating such that either of the following expressions hold 620
for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 621
|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 622
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 623
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind 624
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating such that either of the following 625
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 626
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 627
|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. 628
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 629
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 630
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, there’s a 631
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 632
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 633
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 634
assign to the values. 635
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 636
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 637
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 638
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 639
understandable. 640
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 641
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 642
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 643
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 644
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 645
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 646
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 647
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 648
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual 649
. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic

Dimension Dominating 650
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 651

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, there’s a 652
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 653
Dominating”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the 654
labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 655
position of labels to assign to the values. 656
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. It’s redefined a 657
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 658
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But As Equal Dimension Dominating 659
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 660
Forms 661
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 662
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V 664
is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 665
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 666
probability of A. 667
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 668
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 670
called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 671
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 672
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 673
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 674
criteria 675
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 676
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Any k-function Equal Dimension Dominating 678
like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Equal Dimension 679
Dominating like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 680
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 681
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 682
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 684
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 685
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 686
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 687
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. A Neutrosophic number is called 689
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 690
Crossing criteria 691
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 692
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let m and n 693
propose special Equal Dimension Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 694
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 695
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 696
Neutrosophic independently with probability Equal Dimension Dominating p := 4n/m, and set 697
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 698
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: 699
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
700
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 701
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let P be a 702
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 703
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 704
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 705
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 706
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points 707
on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 708
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 709
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 710
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 711
again l < 32n2 /k 3 . 712
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let P be a 714
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 715
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 716
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 717
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 718
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 719
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 720
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
721
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 722
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on 723
the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 724
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 725
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 726
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 727
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 728
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 729
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 730
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 731
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 732
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let X be a 733
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 734
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. 735
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 736
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be a 737
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Equal Dimension Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 738
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 739
Proof. 740
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. A special 742
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 743
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph 745
in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 746
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 747
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 748
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 749
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 750
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 751
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 752
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 753
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 754
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: 755
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 756
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 757
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 758
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 759
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 760
stability number at most k. 761
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 762
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 764
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 765
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 766
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let X be a 768
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 769
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let X be a Neutrosophic 771
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 772
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
773
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be a 775
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Equal Dimension Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 776
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 777
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Set X := Xn and 779
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 780
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 781
when Xn = 0. 782
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 784
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 785
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 786
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 787
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. As in the proof of related 789
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 790
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 792
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 793
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 794
or 795
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 796
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. The latter is 798
straightforward. 799
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 800
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 802
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 803
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 804
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 805
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 806
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 807
S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 809
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 810
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 811
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. Let F be a 813
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 814
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 815
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 816
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Equal Dimension Dominating. The latter is 818
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 820
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 821
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 822
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 823
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 824
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 825
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 826
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 827
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 828
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 829
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 830
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 831
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Equal Dimension Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Equal Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
832
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 835
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 836
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 837
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 838
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 839
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 840
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 841

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
842
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 845

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
846




{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
850

{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
854


{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
858

{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
862




{E1 , E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V11 }}.
= z 3−a .
866

{E3i+1 , E23 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 , V11 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
870


{EN SHG − {E1 , E5 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V11 }}.
= z 3−a .
874

{EN SHG − {E1 , E6 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)
878

{EN SHG − {E1 , E2 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 5−a .
882

(16.3)

{EN SHG − {E6 , E9 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
886

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .
890

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
894

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 }.
= z 2−a .
898

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
902

{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
906

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }3i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2i+1 }5i=0 .
= z 2−a .
910

{EN SHG − {E1 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , {U2 , V2 , W2 }}.
= z 3−a .

(16.3)
914

{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .
918

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .
922
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 923
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 924
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating if for any of them, and any of other 925
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 926
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 927
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 928
amount of them. 929
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 930
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 931
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 932
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating minus all Neutrosophic 933
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 934
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 935
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating, minus 936
all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 937
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 Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension 938
Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 939
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 940
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 941
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 942
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating in 943
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 944
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 945
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating. 946
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Equal Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating with the least Neutrosophic 947
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 948
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 949
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 950
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualDimensionDominating

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualDimensionDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−EqualDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Equal Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, 951
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Equal Dimension 952
Dominating is the cardinality of 953

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualDimensionDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−EqualDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP 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 Dimension
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 Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Equal Dimension 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 Dimension
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 954
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 955
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 956
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 957
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 958
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 959
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 960
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 961
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension 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
Dimension 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 Dimension
Dominating has the Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a
Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension 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 Dimension 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 Dimension 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 Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 962
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 963
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 964
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 965
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 966
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 Dimension Dominating. Those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Neutrosophic style-R-Equal Dimension
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 Dimension Dominating
is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension 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 Dimension 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, 967
Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
968
Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating =

Thus E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension 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 Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Equal 969
Dimension Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 970
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 971
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 972
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 973
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating in 974
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 975
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 976
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension 977
Dominating. 978
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 979
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 980
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 981
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 982
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 983
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 984
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 985
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 986
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 987
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 988
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 989
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating where 990
the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 991
literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Equal Dimension Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of 992
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 993
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 994
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 995
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 996
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 997
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 998
Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 999
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1000
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1001
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1002
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct 1003
types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension 1004
Dominating. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one 1005
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the 1006
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In 1007
the embedded Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior 1008
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 1009
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 1010
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1011
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1012
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1013
R-Equal Dimension Dominating. The Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating with the exclusion of 1014
the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1015
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating with 1016
the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1017
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating. To sum them up, in 1018
a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 1019
one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1020
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1021
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor 1022
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique 1023
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic 1024
SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating, minus all 1025
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1026
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating has two titles. a 1027
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1028
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1029
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating with 1030
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1031
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1032
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1033
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominatings for all Neutrosophic 1034
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1035
Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1036
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating, again and more in the operations of 1037
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominatings acted on the all possible 1038
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic 1039
number. This Neutrosophic number is 1040
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Equal Dimension 1041
Dominatings. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1042
GNeutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1043
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating. Then 1044
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating is 1045
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1046
GNeutrosophic Equal Dimension 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 1047
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating. 1048
GNeutrosophic Equal Dimension 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 1049
Equal Dimension Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1050

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1051

= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1052


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1053
GNeutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1054

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

1055


1056


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1057
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1058
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1059
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1060
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Equal Dimension Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the 1061
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Equal Dimension Dominating” since “Neutrosophic 1062
Quasi-Equal Dimension Dominating” happens “Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating” in a 1063
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1064
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic Equal Dimension 1065
Dominating” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily 1066
background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1067
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1068
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-Equal Dimension Dominating”, 1069
and “Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating” are up. 1070
Thus, let 1071
zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1072
GNeutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1073
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating and the new terms 1074
are up. 1075
GNeutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1076

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

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1078

And with go back to initial structure, 1079
GNeutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1080

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1081


1082


Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1083
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-Equal Dimension 1084
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic 1085
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1086
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all 1087
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1088
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1089
are coming up. 1090
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Dominating
Is an Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1091
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1092
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1093
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic 1094
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1095
Neutrosophic Equal Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
Equal Dimension 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
Dimension 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
Dimension Dominating
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1096
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1097
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1098
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1099
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating and it’s an 1100
Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1101
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 Dimension Dominating.
There isn’t only less than two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating,
is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Equal Dimension Dominating, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1102
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1103
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1104
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1105
“Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating” 1106
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1107
Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating, 1108
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 Dimension Dominating amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic Equal
Dimension Dominating, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1109
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1110
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1111
quasi-R-Equal Dimension Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1112
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1113
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1114
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1115
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1116
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1117
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1118
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1119
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1120
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1121
Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1122
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1123
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1124
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1125
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1126
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1127
R-Equal Dimension Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1128
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1130
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1131
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1132
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1133
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1134
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1135
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1136
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1137
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1138
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1139
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1140
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1141
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1142
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating, VESHE is up. The obvious 1143
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating, 1144
VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1145
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1146
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1147
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1148
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1149
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1150
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1151
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1152
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1153
Neutrosophic R-Equal Dimension Dominating only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1154
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1155
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1156
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1157
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1158
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1159
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1160
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Equal Dimension Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1161
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1162
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1163
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating. The 1164
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1165

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−EqualDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−EqualDimensionDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−EqualDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Equal Dimension 1166
. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Dominating 1167
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1168

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1169
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1170
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1173
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1174
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1175
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating 1176
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1177
Equal Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two Neutrosophic 1178
SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1179

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 1181
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1182
Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1183
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1184

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 1185
Dimension Dominating. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1186

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1188
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1189
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1190
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1191
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating and it’s an 1192
Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1193
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1195
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1196
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1197
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1198
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1199

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating , 1200

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 1201
, not:
Dimension Dominating 1202

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1203

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 1204
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1205
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1206
“Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating ” 1207
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1208
Neutrosophic Equal Dimension Dominating , 1209
is only and only 1210

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1211
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1212
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1213
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1214
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1215
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1216
Then 1217

|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 1218
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1219
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 Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1220
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1221
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 1222
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1223
The latter is straightforward. 1224
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1225
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1226
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1227
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1228
Then 1229

|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 1230
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1231
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 1232
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1233

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1237
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1238
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1239
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1241
Then 1242

{EN SHG − {E1 , E2 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {ViIN T ERN AL , CEN T ER}}.
= z 3−a .
Proof. Let 1243
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

1244
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1245
There’s a new way to redefine as 1246

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1250
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1251
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1252
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1253
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1254
Dominating. 1255
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1256
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1257

{EN SHG − {EPi , EPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
{VN SHG − {VPi , VPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
Proof. Let 1258
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
1259
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1260
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1261

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1264
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1265
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1266
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1267
the 1268
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1269
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1270
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1271
solution 1272
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1274
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1275
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1276
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1277
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1278
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1279
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1280
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1281

{EN SHG − {EPi , EPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
{VN SHG − {VPi , VPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating in the Example
(16.11)
Proof. Let 1282
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
1283
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 1285

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1288
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1289
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1290
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.13)
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1291
the 1292
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1293
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1294
solution 1296
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1298
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1299
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1300
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1301
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1302
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1303
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1304
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1305
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1306

|E |
{E3i+2 }i=0ESHP ∪ E ∗ .
| min |E | |Ei |
{E3i+2 } ESHP ∪E ∗
=z i=0 .
|E |
EXT ERN AL
{V2i+2 }i=0ESHP ∪ V ∗ .
| min |E | |Vi |
{V EXT ERN AL } ESHP ∪V ∗
=z 2i+2 i=0 .
Proof. Let 1307
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1308
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1310

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1313
Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperEqual 1314
Dimension Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1315
Dominating proposes some longest SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating excerpt from some 1316
representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1317
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1319
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1320
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1321
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1322
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1324
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1325
For the SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 1326
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, some general results are 1327
introduced. 1328
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating is 1329
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1330
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. Then 1331
N eutrosophic SuperHyperEqualDimensionDominating =
{theSuperHyperEqualDimensionDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperEqualDimensionDominating
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperEqualDimensionDominating. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1332
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1333
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1334
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1335
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and 1336
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating coincide. 1337
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1339
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1340
Dominating. 1341
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1343
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1344
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1345
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1346
Dominating is its SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1347
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1348
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1349
SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1350
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating is its SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1351
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1352
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1353
Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1354
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1355
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1356
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1357

Dominating 1359
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating isn’t 1360
well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1361
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1362
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1363
Dominating is well-defined. 1364
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1365
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1366
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1367

Dominating 1369
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating is well-defined 1370
if and only if its SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1371
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1372
is 1373
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1374
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1375
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1376
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1377
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1378
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1379
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1380
∅ is 1381
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1382
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1383
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1384
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1385
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1386
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1387
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1388
independent SuperHyperSet is 1389
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1390
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1391
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1392
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1393
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1394
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1395
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1396
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1397
a maximal 1398
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1399
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1400
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1401
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1402
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1403
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1404
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1405
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1406
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1407
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1408
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1409
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1410
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1411
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1412
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1413
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1414
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1416
number of 1417
(i) : the SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1418
(ii) : the SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1419
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1420
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1421
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1422
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1423
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1424
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1425
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1427
(i) : the dual SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1428
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1429
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1430
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1431
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1432
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1433
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1434
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1437
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1438
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1439
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1440
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1444
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1445
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1446
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1449
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1450
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1451
is a 1452
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1456
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1457
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1458
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1461
number of 1462
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1466
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1467
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1468
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1469
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1470
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1471
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1473
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1474
(iv) : SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1478
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1479
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1480
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1481
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1482
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1483
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1484
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1485
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1489
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1491
Dominating. 1492
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1494
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1495
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1499
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1500
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1501
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1503
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1505
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1506
of a dual 1507
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1511
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1512
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1513
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1515
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1516
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1517
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1523
Dominating. 1524
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1525
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1526
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1527
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1528
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1529
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1530
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, then 1531
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1532
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1533
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1534
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1535
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, then 1536
(i) S is SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating set; 1537
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1538
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1539
Then 1540
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1541
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1542
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1543
which is connected. Then 1544
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1545
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1546
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1547
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1548
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1549
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1550
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1551
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1552
a dual SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1553
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1554
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1555
Dominating; 1556
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1557
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1558
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1559
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1560
dual SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1561
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. Then 1562
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1563
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1565
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1566
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1567
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1568
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. Then 1570
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1571
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1573
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1574
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1575
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1577
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1578
(ii) Γ = 1; 1579
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1580
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1581
Dominating. 1582
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1583
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1584
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1585
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1586
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1587
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1588
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1589
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1590
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual 1591
Dimension Dominating; 1592
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1593
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1594
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1595
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1597
bn
2c
Dimension Dominating; 1599
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1600

bnc ; 1601
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1602
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1604
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1605
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1606
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1607
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1608
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1609
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperEqual 1610
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1611
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1612
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1613
SuperHyperSet. Then 1614
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1615
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1616
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1617

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1618
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1619
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1620
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1621
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1622
SuperHyperSet. Then 1623
bn
2c
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1625
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1626

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1627
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only dual maximal SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1628
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1629
Then following statements hold; 1631
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1632
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1633
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1634
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1635
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1636
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1637
Then following statements hold; 1639
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1640
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1641
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1642
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1643
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1644
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1645
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1646
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1647
statements hold; 1648
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1649
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1650
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1651
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1653
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1655
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1656
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1657
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1658
statements hold; 1659
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1660
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1662
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1664
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1666
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1667
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1669
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1670
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1671
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1673
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1675
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1678
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1680
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1681
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1682
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1684
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1686
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; 1687
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1689
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperEqual 1691
Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1692
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1693
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1695
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1697
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1700
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperEqual 1702
Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1703
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1704
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1706
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1708
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. 1711
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1712
Neutrosophic Recognition 1713
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1714
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1715
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1716
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1717
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1718
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1719
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1720
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1721
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1722
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1723
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1724
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1725
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1726
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1727
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1728
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1729
happened and what’s done. 1730
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1731
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1732
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1733
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1734
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 1735
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 1736
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual 1737
Dimension Dominating or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating in those 1738
Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1739
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1740
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1741
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1742
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1743
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1744
featured. 1745
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1746
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1747
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1748
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1749
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1750
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 Dimension Dominating
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1752
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1753
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1754
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1755
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1756
Neutrosophic featured. 1757
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1758
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1759
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1760
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1761
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1762
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1764
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1765
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1766
The SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1767
Dominating are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1768
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1769
recognitions? 1770
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1771
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating?

Dominating 1772
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1773
compute them? 1774
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1775
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating? 1776
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic 1777
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1778
they’re based on SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, are there else? 1779
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1780
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1781
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1782
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1783
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1784
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1785
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1786
highlighted. 1787
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1788
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1789
SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1790
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1791
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1792
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, finds the convenient 1793
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1794
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1795
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1796
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1797
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1798
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1799
the SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 1800
Dominating. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way 1801
through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the 1802
notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1803
are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the 1804
background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, 1805
full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel 1806
proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the 1807
cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the 1808
architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating” in the themes of 1809
jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded 1810
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 Dimension Dominating
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1811
benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1812
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1813
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1814
Forms 1815
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1816
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1820
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1821
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1822
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1823
|Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1824
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1825
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1826
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1827
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1828
|Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1829
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1830
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1831
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1832
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1833
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1836
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1838
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1839
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1840
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1841
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1843
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1844
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1847
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1851
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1852
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1853
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1854
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1855
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1860
Extreme coefficient; 1861
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1862
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1863
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1865
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1866
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1871
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1872
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1873
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1878
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1880
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1881
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1888
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1889
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1897
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1899
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1908
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1909
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1913
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1914
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1915
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1916
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1917
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1918
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1919
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1920
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 1923
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1924
SuperHyperDuality. 1929


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 1992
ESHP : (V, E). Then 1993
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 1994
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 1998
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2002
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2003
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2004
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 2005
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2016
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 2017
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2027
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 2030
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 2035
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2036
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2037
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2038
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2039
solution 2042
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2049

= {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 2052
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2053

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2059
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2064
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2072
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 2074
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 2075
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 2076
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2077

∃!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 2082
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2083
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2090
Forms 2092
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2093
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2097
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2098
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2099
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2100
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2102
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2103
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2104
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2105
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2107
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2108
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2109
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2110
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2113
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2114
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2115
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2120
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2121
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2123
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2128
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2129
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2130
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2131
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2132
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2137
coefficient; 2138
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2139
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2142
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2144
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2145
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2148
coefficient; 2149
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2150
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2153
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2157
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2158
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2165
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2166
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2174
coefficient; 2175
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2176
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2185
coefficient. 2186
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2190
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2191
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2192
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2193
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2194
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2195
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2196
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2197
SuperHyperJoin. 2198
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 2272
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2276
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2280

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

.
Proof. Let 2283
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2294
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 2295

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2305
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 2308
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 2313
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2314
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2315
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2317
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2318
solution 2320
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2327

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

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2335
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2336
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2337
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2342
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2350

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

.
Proof. Let 2353
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2354

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2358
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2359
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2360
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2361
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2368
Forms 2370
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2371
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2375
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2376
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2377
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2378
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2380
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2381
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2382
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2383
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2385
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2386
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2387
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2388
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2391
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2393
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2396
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2398
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2399
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2406
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2407
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2408
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2409
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2415
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2417
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2418
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2426
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2428
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2433
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2435
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2436
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2443
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2444
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2452
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2454
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2463
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2468
SuperHyperPerfect. 2476
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 2550
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2554
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2558
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 2561
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2572
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2573

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2583
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 2586
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 2591
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2592
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2593
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2594
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2595
solution 2598
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2605

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 2608
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2609

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2613
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2614
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2615
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2620
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2628
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2631

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2632

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2636
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2637
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2638
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2639
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2646
Forms 2648
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2649
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2653
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2654
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2655
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2656
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2658
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2659
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2660
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2661
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2663
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2664
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2665
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2666
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2669
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2671
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2676
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2677
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2679
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2684
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2685
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2686
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2693
coefficient; 2694
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2695
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2701
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2704
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2706
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2713
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2714
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2721
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2722
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2730
coefficient; 2731
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2732
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2741
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2746
SuperHyperTotal. 2754
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 2828
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2832
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2836
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 2839
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 2850
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 2851
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2861
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 2864
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2869
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2870
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2873
solution 2876
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2883

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 2886
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2887

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2891
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2892
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2898
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2906
∗
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 2909
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2910

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2914
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2915
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2916
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2917
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2924
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2925
Forms 2926
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2927
SuperHyperConnected). 2928
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2932
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2933
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2934
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2935
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2936
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2937
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2939
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2940
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2941
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2942
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2943
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2944
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2946
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2947
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2948
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2949
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2952
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2954
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2955
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2956
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2957
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2959
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2960
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2963
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2964
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2967
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2968
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2969
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2970
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2971
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2972
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2973
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2974
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2975
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2976
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2977
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2978
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2979
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2980
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2981
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 2982
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 2983
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2984
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 2985
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 2986
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2987
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2988
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2989
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2992
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2993
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 2994
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 2995
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2996
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2997
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3000
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3001
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3004
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3005
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3008
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 3009
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 3010
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3011
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 3012
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3014
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3016
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3019
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 3020
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 3021
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3022
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3025
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3026
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3030
SuperHyperConnected. 3038
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 3112
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 3116
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3120
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 3123
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 3134
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 3135
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3145
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 3148
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3153
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3154
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3157
solution 3160
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3167
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 3170
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3175
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3176
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3182
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3190
∗
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 3193
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3195

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3198
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3199
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3200
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3201
17 Background 3209
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3210
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3211
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3212
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3213
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3214
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3215
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3216
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3217
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3218
with pages 32-55. 3219
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3220
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3221
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3222
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3223
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3224
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3225
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3226
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3227
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3228
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3229
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3230
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3231
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3232
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3233
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3234
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3235
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3236
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3237
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3238
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3239
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3240
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3241
SuperHyperNumbers. 3242
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3243
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3244
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3245
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3246
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3247
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3248
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3249
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3250
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3251
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3252
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3253
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3254
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3255
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3256
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3257
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3258
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3259
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3260
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3261
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3262
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3263
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3264
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3265
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3266
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3267
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3268
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3269
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3270
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3271
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3272
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3273
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3274
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3275
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3276
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3277
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3278
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3279
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3280
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3281
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3282
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3283
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3284
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3285
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3286
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3287
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3288
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3289
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3290
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3291
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3292
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3293
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3294
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3295
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3296
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3297
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3298
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3299
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3300
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3301
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3302
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3303
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3304
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3305
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3306
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3307
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3308
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3309
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3310
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3311
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3312
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3313
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3314
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3315
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3316
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3317
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3318
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [184] by Henry 3319
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3320
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3321
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [185] by Henry Garrett 3322
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3323
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3324
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [186] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3325
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3326
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3327
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [187] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3328
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3329
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [190] by 3330
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3331
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3332
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [191] by Henry 3333
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3334
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3335
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [194] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3336
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3337
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [197] by Henry 3338
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3339
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3340
in Ref. [198] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3341
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3342
Ref. [199] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3343
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3344
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [200] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3345
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3346
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [201] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3347
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3348
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [202] by Henry Garrett 3349
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3350
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [213] by Henry 3351
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3352
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3353
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [214] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [?, 4–214], there 3354
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3355
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3356
at [215–335]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3357
readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [336, 337]. 3358
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3359
proposed as book in Ref. [336] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3360
Scholar and has more than 4728 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3361
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3362
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3363
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3364
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3365
proposed as book in Ref. [337] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3366
Scholar and has more than 5721 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3367
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3368
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3369
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3370
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3371
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3372
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3373
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3374
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3375
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [?, 4–214] 3376
alongside scientific research books at [215–335]. Two popular scientific research books 3377
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic 3378
science is on [336, 337]. 3379
References 3380
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3381
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3382
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3383
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3384
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3385
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3386
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3387
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3388
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3389
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3390
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3391
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3392
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3393
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3394
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3395
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3396
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3397
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3398
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3399
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3400
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3401
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3402
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3403
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3404
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3405
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3406
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3407
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3408
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3409
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3410
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3411
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3412
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3413
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3414
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3415
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3416
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3417
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3418
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3419
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3420
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3421
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3422
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3423
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3424
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3425
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3426
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3427
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3428
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3429
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3430
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3431
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3432
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3433
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3434
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3435
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3436
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3437
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3438
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3439
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3440
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3441
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3442
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3443
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3444
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3445
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3446
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3447
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3448
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3449
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3450
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3451
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3452
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3453
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3454
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3455
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3456
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3457
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3458
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3459
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3460
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3462
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3466
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3467
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3468
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3469
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3470
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3471
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3472
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3473
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3474
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3475
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3476
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3477
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3478
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3479
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3480
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3481
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3482
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3483
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3484
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3485
SuperHyperGraph By Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3487
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8061927). 3488
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Dimension 3489
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3490
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8062016). 3491
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3493
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8057696). 3494
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse 3495
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3496
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8057753). 3497
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3499
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8052893). 3500
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Equal 3501
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3502
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super 3505
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346). 3506
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 3507
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3511
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3513
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3517
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3518
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3519
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3520
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3521
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3523
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3524
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3525
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3526
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3527
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3529
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3531
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3532
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3535
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3536
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3537
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3539
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3541
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3542
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3543
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3544
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3547
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3548
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3549
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3550
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3551
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3552
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3553
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3555
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3556
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3558
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3561
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3564
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3567
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3568
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3570
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3573
55. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3575
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3576
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3579
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3582
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3585
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3586
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3588
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3591
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3592
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3594
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3597
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3600
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3603
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3606
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3609
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3610
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3612
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3613
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3615
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3616
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3618
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3621
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3624
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3625
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3627
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3630
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3631
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3632
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3634
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3635
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3637
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3638
76. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3639
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3640
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3643
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3646
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3647
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3649
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3650
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3652
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3655
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3658
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3661
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3664
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3667
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3670
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3673
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3676
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3678
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3679
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3680
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3682
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3685
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3686
92. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3687
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3689
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3691
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3694
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3697
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3698
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3700
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3701
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3703
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3704
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3705
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3706
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3707
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3709
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3712
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3715
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3716
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3718
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3721
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3723
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3725
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3727
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3729
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3730
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3733
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3735
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3736
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3739
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3741
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3743
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3745
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3747
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3748
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3751
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3752
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3754
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3757
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3759
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3761
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3763
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3764
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3766
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3768
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3770
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3772
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3773
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3774
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3775
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3776
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3778
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3779
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3780
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3781
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3784
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3786
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3787
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3790
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3792
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3793
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3796
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3798
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3800
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3802
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3803
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3804
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3805
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3808
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3809
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3810
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3811
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3814
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3815
135. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3816
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3817
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3820
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3821
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3822
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3823
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3826
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3827
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3828
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3829
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3832
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3833
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3834
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3835
142. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3837
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3838
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3841
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3842
144. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3843
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3844
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3847
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3848
146. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3849
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3850
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3853
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3855
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3856
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3859
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3861
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3862
151. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3864
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3865
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3868
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3871
154. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3873
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3874
155. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3876
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3877
156. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3879
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3880
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3881
157. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3882
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3883
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3884
158. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3885
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3886
159. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3888
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3889
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3890
160. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3891
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3892
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3893
161. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3894
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3895
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3896
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3897
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3900
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3901
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3904
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3905
164. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3906
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3908
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3909
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3912
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3913
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3916
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3917
167. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3918
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3919
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3920
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3921
168. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3922
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3923
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3924
169. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3925
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3926
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3927
170. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3928
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3929
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3930
171. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3931
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3932
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3933
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3934
172. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3935
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3936
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3937
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3938
173. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3939
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3940
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3941
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3942
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3943
174. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3944
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3945
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3946
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3947
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3948
175. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3949
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3950
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3951
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3952
176. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3953
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3954
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3955
177. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3956
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3957
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3959
178. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3960
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3961
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3962
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3963
179. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3964
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3965
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3966
180. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3967
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3968
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3969
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3970
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3971
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3972
181. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3973
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3974
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3975
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3976
182. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3977
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3978
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3979
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3980
183. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3981
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3982
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3983
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3984
184. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3985
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3986
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3987
185. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3988
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3989
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3990
186. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3992
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3993
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3994
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3995
187. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3996
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3997
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3998
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3999
188. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4000
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4001
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4002
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4003
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4005
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4006
190. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4007
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 4008
191. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 4010
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 4011
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 4012
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4017
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4021
194. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4022
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4023
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4024
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4025
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4028
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4030
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4031
197. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4032
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4033
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4036
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4037
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4039
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4040
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4043
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4044
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4046
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4047
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4050
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4051
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4053
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4054
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 4056
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4061
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4062
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 4066
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 4067
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4070
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 4073
209. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4074
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4075
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4076
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4077
210. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4078
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4079
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4080
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 4081
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4084
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4085
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4088
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 4089
213. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4090
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4091
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4092
214. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4093
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4094
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4095
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4096
215. Henry Garrett, “Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4097
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8062076). 4098
216. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4099
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8057817). 4100
217. Henry Garrett, “Equal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4101
218. Henry Garrett, “Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4103
219. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4105
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 4106
220. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4107
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 4108
221. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4109
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 4110
222. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4111
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 4112
223. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4113
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 4114
224. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4115
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 4116
225. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4117
226. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4119
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 4120
227. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4121
228. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4123
229. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4125
230. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4127
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 4128
231. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4129
232. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4131
233. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4133
234. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4135
235. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4137
236. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4139
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4140
237. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4141
238. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4143
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4144
239. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4145
240. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4147
241. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4149
242. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4151
243. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4153
244. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4155
245. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4157
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4158
246. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4159
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4160
247. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4161
248. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4163
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4164
249. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4165
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4166
250. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4167
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4168
251. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4169
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4170
252. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4171
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4172
253. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4173
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4174
254. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4175
255. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4177
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4178
256. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4179
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4180
257. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4181
258. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4183
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4184
259. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4185
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4186
260. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4187
261. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4189
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4190
262. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4191
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4192
263. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4193
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4194
264. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4195
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4196
265. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4197
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4198
266. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4199
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4200
267. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4201
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4202
268. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4203
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4204
269. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4205
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4206
270. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4207
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4208
271. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4209
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4210
272. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4211
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4212
273. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4213
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4214
274. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4215
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4216
275. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4217
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4218
276. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4219
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4220
277. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4221
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4222
278. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4223
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4224
279. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4225
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4226
280. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4227
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4228
281. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4229
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4230
282. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4231
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4232
283. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4233
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4234
284. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4235
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4236
285. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4237
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4238
286. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4239
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4240
287. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4241
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4242
288. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4243
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4244
289. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4245
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4246
290. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4247
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4248
291. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4249
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4250
292. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4251
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4252
293. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4253
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4254
294. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4255
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4256
295. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4257
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4258
296. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4259
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4260
297. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4261
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4262
298. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4263
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4264
299. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4265
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4266
300. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4267
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4268
301. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4269
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4270
302. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4271
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4272
303. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4273
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4274
304. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4275
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4276
305. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4277
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4278
306. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4279
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4280
307. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4281
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4282
308. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4283
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4284
309. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4285
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4286
310. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4287
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4288
311. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4289
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4290
312. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4291
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4292
313. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4293
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4294
314. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4295
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4296
315. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4297
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4298
316. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4299
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4300
317. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4301
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4302
318. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4303
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4304
319. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4305
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4306
320. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4307
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4308
321. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4309
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4310
322. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4311
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4312
323. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4313
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4314
324. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4315
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4316
325. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4317
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4318
326. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4319
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4320
327. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4321
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4322
328. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4323
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4324
329. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4325
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4326
330. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4327
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4328
331. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4329
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4330
332. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4331
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4332
333. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4333
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4334
334. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4335
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4336
335. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4337
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4338
336. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4339
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4340
337. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4341
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4342
View publication stats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity

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 Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity

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

499 PUBLICATIONS 20,936 CITATIONS

Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project

Featured Articles View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Equal Dimension Dominating As 3

Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity 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 Dimension Dominating). Let a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S be 10

a Equal Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating criteria holds 14

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

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating criteria holds 19

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating criteria holds 21

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

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

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

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 24

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

Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 29

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 30

v-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 Dimension Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension 36

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

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

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperEqual Dimension 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 43

SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating 44

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

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

for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 48

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 49

number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an 50

Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 51

SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 53

Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating 54

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, 55

Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperEqual Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperEqual 56

for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 58

SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 59

Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 60