New Ideas On Super Dimity by Hyper Dimple of Reverse Dimension Dominating in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371783312
New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse Dimension Dominating

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8072267
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
503 PUBLICATIONS 21,601 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 22 June 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse 2
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating). Let a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S 10
be a Reverse 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-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse 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-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating criteria holds 16

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 17
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 18
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse 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-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating criteria holds 21

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse 23
Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 24
v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 25
Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperReverse 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
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse 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 SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension 36
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 37
re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, 38
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperReverse 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
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 44
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 45
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 46
Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 49
Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 50
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 51
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 52
form the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is 53
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension 54
Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 55
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 58
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 59
the 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 SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; and the 63
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 64
V-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse 65
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 69
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 70
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 71
Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 72
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 73
re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, 74
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 75
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 76
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 77
of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 78
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 79
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; an Extreme V-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 80
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 81
Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 85
Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 86
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 87
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 88
form the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is 89
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension 90
Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 91
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 94
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 95
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 96
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 97
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 98
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension 99
Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In 100
this scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 101
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 102
Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes 103
further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 104
on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 105
whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 106
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 107
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 108
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 109
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 110
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 111
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 112
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 113
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 114
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 115
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 116
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 117
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 118
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 119
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 120
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 121
δ−SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 122
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 123
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 124
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 125
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 126
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 127
is a maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 128
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 129
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 130
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 131
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 132
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 133
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 134
version of a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating . Since there’s more ways to get 135
type-results to make a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating more understandable. For the 136
sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, there’s a need to 137
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices 138
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 139
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 140
Assume a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 141
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The 142
Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to 143
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The 144
Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The 145
SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The 146
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum 147
Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of 148
Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the 149
next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperReverse Dimension 150
Dominating . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous 151
definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperReverse 152
Dimension Dominating until the SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, then it’s officially called a 153
“SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperReverse Dimension 154
Dominating . There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition 155
titled a “SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating ”. These two examples get more scrutiny 156
and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 157
SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating . For the sake of having 158
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, there’s a need to “redefine” the 159
notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” and a “Neutrosophic 160
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 161
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 162
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 164
intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating are redefined to a 165
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful 166
to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 167
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 168
more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 169
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 170
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 171
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 172
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating”, “Neutrosophic 173
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 174
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 175
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” 176
where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperReverse 177
Dimension Dominating amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 178
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating .] SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating . A graph is a 179
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 180
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 181
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 182
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 183
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 184
given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 185
amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 186
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two 187
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s 188
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these 189
SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 190
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 191
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 192
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 193
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 194
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 195
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 196
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 197
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 198
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 199
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 200
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 201
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 202
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 203
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 204
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 205
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 206
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 207
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 208
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 209
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 210
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 211
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperReverse Dimension 212
Dominating, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 213
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperReverse Dimension 214
Dominating or the strongest SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating in those Neutrosophic 215
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, called 216
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, and the strongest SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, 217
called Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, some general results are 218
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only 219
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 220
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. There isn’t 221
any formation of any SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating but literarily, it’s the 222
deformation of any SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it 223
doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 224
theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 225
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, 226
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 227
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 228
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 229
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 230
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 231
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 232
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 233
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 234
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 235
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 236
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 237
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 238
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 239
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 240
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 241
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 242
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 243
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 244
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 245
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 246
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 247
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 248
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 249
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 250
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 251
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 252
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 253
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 254
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 255
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 256
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 257
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 258
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 259
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 260
formally called “ SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 261
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 262
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 263
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 264
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 265
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 266
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 267
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 268
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 269
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 270
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 271
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 272
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 273
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 274
either the optimal SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating or the Extreme SuperHyperReverse 275
Dimension Dominating in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 276
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s 277
have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 278
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. There 279
isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating but literarily, it’s the 280
deformation of any SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it 281
doesn’t form. 282
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 283
find the “ amount of SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” of either individual of cells or the 284
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 285
of SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups 286
of group of cells? 287
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 288
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 289
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 290
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 291
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” on 292
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 293
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 294
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 295
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 296
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 297
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 298
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 299
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 300
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 301
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 302
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 303
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 304
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperReverse Dimension 305
Dominating and Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, are figured out in sections “ 306
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating”. 307
In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Reverse Dimension Dominating to make sense 308
about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme 309
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 310
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 311
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back 312
to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 313
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 314
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 315
Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 316
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 317
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 318
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 319
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating”, 320
“Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 321
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 322
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 323
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 324
presented in section, “ SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating”. The keyword of this research 325
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 326
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 327
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 328
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 329
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 330
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 331
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 332
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 333
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 334
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 335
Research On the Redeemed Ways 336
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 337
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 338
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.5,p.2), 339
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 340
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 341
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 342
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [1],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 343
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 344
(Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 345
to Ref. [216]. 346
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 347
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 348
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.1,p.1). 349
Let X be a Reverse 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 350
+
]− 0, 1 [. 351
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2). 352
Let X be a Reverse 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 353
2.5,p.2). 354
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 355
pair S = (V, E), where 356
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 357
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 358
1, 2, . . . , n); 359
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 360
V; 361
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 362
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 363
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 364
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 365
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 366
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 367
(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 . 368
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 369
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 370
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 371
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 372
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 373
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 374
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 375
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 376
the ii0 th element of the Reverse Dimension Dominating of Neutrosophic 377
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 378
and E are crisp sets. 379
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 380
(Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3). 381
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 382
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 383
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 384
characterized as follow-up items. 385
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 386
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 387
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 388
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 389
HyperEdge; 390
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 391
SuperEdge; 392
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 393
SuperHyperEdge. 394
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 395
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 396
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3). 397
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 398
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 399
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 400
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 401
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 402
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 403
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)). 404
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 405
pair S = (V, E), where 406
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 407
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 408
1, 2, . . . , n); 409
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 410
V; 411
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 412
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 413
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 414
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 415
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 416
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 417
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 418
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 419
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 420
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 421
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 422
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 423
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 424
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 425
the ii0 th element of the Reverse Dimension Dominating of Neutrosophic 426
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 427
and E are crisp sets. 428
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 429
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 431
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 432
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 433
characterized as follow-up items. 434
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 435
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 436
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 437
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 438
HyperEdge; 439
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 440
SuperEdge; 441
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 442
SuperHyperEdge. 443
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 444
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 445
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 446
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 447
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 448
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 449
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 450
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 451
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 452
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 453
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 454
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 455
given SuperHyperEdges; 456
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 457
SuperHyperEdges; 458
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 459
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 460
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 461
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 462
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 463
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 464
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 465
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 466
common SuperVertex. 467
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 468
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 469
of following conditions hold: 470
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 471
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 478
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 479
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 480
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 481
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. 482
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 483
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 484
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 485
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 486
SuperHyperPath . 487
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 488
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 490
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 491
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 492
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 493
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 494
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 495
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 496
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 497
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 498
(ix) Neutrosophic t-Connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 499
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 500
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 501
(x) Neutrosophic i-Connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 502
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 503
(xi) Neutrosophic f-Connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 505
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 506
(xii) Neutrosophic Connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 508
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 509
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 510
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 511
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse 512
Dimension Dominating). 513
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 515
either V 0 or E 0 is called 516
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the following 517
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 518
criteria holds 519

(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the following 520
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 521
criteria holds 522

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 523
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the following 524
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 525
criteria holds 526

(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the following 527
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 528
criteria holds 529

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 530
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 531
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 532
re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 533
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 534
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating). 535
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 537
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 538
e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 539
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic 540
rv-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 541
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 542
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 543
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 544
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 545
Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 546
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 547
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) 550
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 551
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 552
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 553
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 554
Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 555
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 556
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 557
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 560
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 561
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 562
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 563
Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is 565
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 566
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 567
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse 568
v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperReverse 570
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 571
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 572
Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 573
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 574
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 575
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 576
Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is 577
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 578
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 579
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 583
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 584
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 585
Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 587
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 588
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 592
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 593
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 594
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 595
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 596
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 597
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 601
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 602
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 603
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 604
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 605
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension 606
Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 607
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 608
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 612
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 613
Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 614
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 615
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 616
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 617
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; and the 618
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 619
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating). 620
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 621
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−SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of 622
Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating such that either of the following 623
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 624
s∈S: 625
|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 626
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 627
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic 628
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating such that either of the 629
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 630
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 631
|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. 632
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 633
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 634
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, there’s a 635
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 636
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 637
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 638
assign to the values. 639
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 640
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 641
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 642
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 643
understandable. 644
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 645
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 646
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, 647
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 648
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 649
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 650
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 651
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 652

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse 653
. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic

Dimension Dominating 654
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 655
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, there’s a 656
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension 657
Dominating”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the 658
labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 659
position of labels to assign to the values. 660
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. It’s redefined a 661
Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 662
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The

Reverse Dimension Dominating 663
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 664
Forms 665
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 666
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 667
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 668
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 669
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 670
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 671
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 673
called Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 674
s-independent criteria 675
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 676
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 677
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 678
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Any k-function Reverse Dimension Dominating 680
like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Reverse Dimension 681
Dominating like E is called Extreme Variable. 682
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 683
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 684
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 686
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 687
Expectation criteria 688
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 689
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. an Extreme number is called 691
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 692
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 693
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let m and n propose special 694
Reverse Dimension Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 695
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 696
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 697
independently with probability Reverse Dimension Dominating p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] 698
and H := G[S]. 699
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 700
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
701
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 702
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 703
points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines √ in the plane 704
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 705
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 706
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points on the 707
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 708
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 709
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 710
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 711
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 712
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 714
points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 715
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 716
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 717
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 718
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 719

P n−1
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0 ni = n 720
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
721
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 722
between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at 723
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 Extreme 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 Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 731
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 732
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let X be a 733
nonnegative Extreme 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 an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 736
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be a 737
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating 738
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 739
Proof. 740
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 741
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. A special 742
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 743
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p 745
is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 746
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 747
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 748
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 749
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 750
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 751
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 752
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 753
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: 754
k+1
n
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 755
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 756
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 757
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 758
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 759
number at most k. 760
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 761
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 763
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 764
Variance criteria 765
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let X be an 767
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 768
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let X be an Extreme Variable and 770
let t be a positive real number. Then 771
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
772
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be an 774
Extreme Variable in a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 775
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 776
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 778
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 779
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 780
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, 782
set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 783
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 784
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. As in the proof of related Theorem, 786
the result is straightforward. 787
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 789
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 790
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 791
or 792
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 793
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 795
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 796
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 798
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 799
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 800
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 801
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 802
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 803
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let F be a fixed Extreme 805
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 806
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 807
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.3)
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. Let F be a 809
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 810
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 811
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 812
S = (V, E) is a probability Reverse Dimension Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 814
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 815
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 816
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 817
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 818
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 819
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 820
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 821
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 822
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 823
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 824
Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 825
C(N SHG)Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Reverse Dimension Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Reverse Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
826

straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 829
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 830
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 831
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 832
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 833
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperReverse 834
Dimension Dominating. 835

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

straightforward. 839

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
840

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


{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
848

{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
852




{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
856

{E1 , E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V11 }}.
= z 3−a .
860


{E3i+1 , E23 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 , V11 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
864

{EN SHG − {E1 , E5 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V11 }}.
= z 3−a .
868




{EN SHG − {E1 , E6 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
872

{EN SHG − {E1 , E2 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 5−a .
876


{EN SHG − {E6 , E9 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
880

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .
884




{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
888

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


{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
896

{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
900




{E3i+1 }3i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2i+1 }5i=0 .
= z 2−a .
904

{EN SHG − {E1 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , {U2 , V2 , W2 }}.
= z 3−a .
908


{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .
912

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .


916
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 917
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension 918
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 919
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 920
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount 921
of them. 922
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 923
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 924
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 925
any given Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 926
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 927
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 928
an Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 929
of them but not all of them. 930
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating is 931
at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 932
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 933
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 934
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Reverse Dimension 935
Dominating in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with 936
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 937
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating. 938
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating has, the least Extreme
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme
cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating with the least Extreme 939
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 940
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 941
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 942
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ReverseDimensionDominating
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ReverseDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ReverseDimensionDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−ReverseDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Reverse Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the 943
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Reverse Dimension Dominating is 944
the cardinality of 945
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ReverseDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ReverseDimensionDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−ReverseDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Reverse Dimension
Dominating since neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of
SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Extreme number of

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

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower
sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Reverse 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 946
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 947
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 948
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 949
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 950
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 951
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 952
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 953
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating decorates the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this
Extreme style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the
maximum Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are
spotlight. The lower Extreme bound is to have the maximum Extreme groups of
Extreme SuperHyperVertices have perfect Extreme connections inside each of
SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this Extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but
regarding the connectedness of the used Extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its
Extreme properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one
Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no
Extreme connection. Furthermore, the Extreme existence of one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex has no Extreme effect to talk about the Extreme R-Reverse Dimension
Dominating. Since at least two Extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the
Extreme background of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The Extreme

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices

Is an Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 954
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 955
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 956
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 957
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every Extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least
no Extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those Extreme
SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in an Extreme R-Reverse Dimension
Dominating. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an Extreme
style-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating. Formally, consider

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

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to
the Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 958
Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
959
Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating =

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
R-Reverse Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Reverse Dimension 960
Dominating is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of 961
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme 962
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 963
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 964
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating in some cases but 965
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 966
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 967
contained in an Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating. 968
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 969
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 970
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 971
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 972
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 973
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 974
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 975
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 976
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 977
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 978
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating 979
where the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 980
literarily, an Extreme embedded R-Reverse Dimension Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of 981
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 982
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 983
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 984
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 985
Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Extreme 986
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded 987
Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating. The interior types of the Extreme 988
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors 989
are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common 990
connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the 991
Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the 992
Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating. Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be 993
used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with 994
the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the 995
embedded Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme 996
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 997
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Extreme 998
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 999
Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the 1000
exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating. 1001
The Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating with the exclusion of the exclusion of all Extreme 1002
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the 1003
Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating with the inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1004
in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating. To sum 1005
them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1006
There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1007
possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1008
Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 1009
of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 1010
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1011
in an Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 1012
some of them but not all of them. 1013
The main definition of the Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating has two titles. an 1014
Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 1015
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1016
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating with that quasi-maximum 1017
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1018
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1019
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1020
quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominatings for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1021
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating 1022
ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension 1023
Dominating, again and more in the operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Reverse 1024
Dimension Dominatings acted on the all possible used formations of the Extreme 1025
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number is 1026
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Reverse Dimension 1027
Dominatings. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1028
GExtreme Reverse Dimension Dominating be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and 1029
an Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating. Then 1030
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Reverse Dimension Dominating ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating is 1031
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1032
GExtreme Reverse Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1033
technical definition for the Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating. 1034
GExtreme Reverse Dimension Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1035
Reverse Dimension Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1036

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1037

= max zExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1038


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1039
GExtreme Reverse Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

1040

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

1041


1042


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1043
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1044
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1045
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1046
Quasi-Reverse Dimension Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1047
Quasi-Reverse Dimension Dominating” since “Extreme Quasi-Reverse Dimension Dominating” happens 1048
“Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1049
and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1050
Reverse Dimension Dominating” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1051
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1052
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1053
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Reverse Dimension Dominating”, and “Extreme 1054
Reverse Dimension Dominating” are up. 1055
Thus, let 1056
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1057
GExtreme Reverse Dimension Dominating be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1058
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating and the new terms are 1059
up. 1060
GExtreme Reverse Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1061

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1062

∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1063

And with go back to initial structure, 1064
GExtreme Reverse Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

1065

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

1066


1067


Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1068
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension Dominating if 1069
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1070
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1071
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1072
them. 1073
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1074
are coming up. 1075
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1076
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1077
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1078
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1079
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1080
Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the

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

Dominating. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1081
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1082
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1083
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Reverse 1084
Dimension Dominating and it’s an Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1085
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for
some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating. There isn’t only less
than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Reverse
Dimension Dominating, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1086
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1087
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1088
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1089
“Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating” 1090
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1091
Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating, 1092
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1093
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower
sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1094
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Reverse Dimension 1095
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1096
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 1097
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any 1098
amount of them. 1099
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1100
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1101
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1102
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1103
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1104
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating with the 1105
least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1106
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1107
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1108
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1109
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Reverse Dimension 1110
Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1111
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1113
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1114
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1115
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme R-Reverse 1116
Dimension Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that 1117
there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1118
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1119
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1120
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1121
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1122
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1123
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1124
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Reverse Dimension Dominating, VESHE 1125
is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Reverse Dimension 1126
Dominating, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme 1127
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1128
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1129
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1130
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1131
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1132
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1133
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Reverse Dimension 1134
Dominating only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1135
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1136
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1137
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1138
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1139
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1140
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Reverse Dimension Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1141
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1142
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1143
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating. The Extreme 1144
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1145
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−ReverseDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−ReverseDimensionDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−ReverseDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating. The 1146
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1147
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1148
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1149
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1151
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1152
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1153
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1154
non-obvious Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1155
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating is an Extreme 1156
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1157
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1158
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1159
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1160
Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1161
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1162
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Reverse Dimension 1163
Dominating. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1164
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1165
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1166
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1167
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1168
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating 1169
and it’s an Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1170
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1172
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1173
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1174
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1175
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating , 1176
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Reverse Dimension 1177
Dominating, not: 1178
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1179
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1180
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1181
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1182
“Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating ” 1183
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1184
Extreme Reverse Dimension Dominating , 1185
is only and only 1186
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1187
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1188
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1189
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1190
SuperHyperClasses. 1191
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1192

|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 1193
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1194
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme Super-

HyperReverse Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1195
There’s a new way to redefine as 1196
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 1197
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1198
The latter is straightforward. 1199
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1200
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1201
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1202
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1203
Then 1204

|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 1205
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1206
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1207

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1212
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1213
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1214
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1215

{EN SHG − {E1 , E2 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {ViIN T ERN AL , CEN T ER}}.
= z 3−a .
Proof. Let 1216
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1217
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1218
a new way to redefine as 1219

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1223
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1224
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1225
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1226
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1227
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1228
Then 1229

{EN SHG − {EPi , EPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
{VN SHG − {VPi , VPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1230
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
1231
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1232

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1236
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1237
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only two 1238
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.11)
SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the 1239
representative in the 1240
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating taken from a connected Extreme 1241
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1242
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1243
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1245
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1246
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1247
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1248
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1249
Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1250
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1251
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1252

{EN SHG − {EPi , EPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
{VN SHG − {VPi , VPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
Proof. Let 1253
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
1254
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 1256

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1259
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1260
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1261
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1262
the 1263
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1264
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1265
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.13)
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1268
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1269
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1270
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1271
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1272
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1273
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1274
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1275
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1276

|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 1277
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1278
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.15)
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1280

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1283
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1284
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded 1285
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating proposes some longest SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1286
Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1287
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1288
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1289
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1290
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1291
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1292
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1293
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1294
For the SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, 1295
and the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, some general results are introduced. 1296
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating is 1297
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1298
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. Then 1299
Extreme SuperHyperReverseDimensionDominating =
{theSuperHyperReverseDimensionDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperReverseDimensionDominating
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperReverseDimensionDominating. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1300
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1301
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1302
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1303
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and 1304
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating coincide. 1305
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1307
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1308
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1310
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1311
Dominating. 1312
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1313
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating is 1314
its SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1315
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, 1316
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1317
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1318
Dominating is its SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1319
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1320
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperReverse 1321
Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1322
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1323
Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1324
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1325
Corollary 6.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1326
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1327
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if 1328
and only if its SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1329
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1330
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1331
Dominating is well-defined. 1332
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1333
its Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1334
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1335
Corollary 6.13. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1336
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1337
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating is well-defined if 1338
and only if its SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1339
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1340
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1341
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1342
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1343
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1344
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1345
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1346
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1347
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1348
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1349
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1350
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1351
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1352
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1353
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1354
independent SuperHyperSet is 1355
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1356
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1357
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1358
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1359
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1360
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1361
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1362
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V 1363
is a maximal 1364
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1365
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1366
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1367
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1368
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1369
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1370
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1371
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1372
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1373
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1374
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1375
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1376
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1377
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1378
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1379
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1380
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1382
number of 1383
(i) : the SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1384
(ii) : the SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1385
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1386
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1387
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1388
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1389
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1390
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1391
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1393
(i) : the dual SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1394
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1395
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1396
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1397
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1398
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1399
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1400
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1403
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1404
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1405
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1406
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1410
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1411
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1412
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1415
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1416
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1417
is a 1418
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1422
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1423
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1424
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1427
number of 1428
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1432
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1433
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1434
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1435
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1436
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1437
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1439
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1440
(iv) : SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1444
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1445
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1446
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1447
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1448
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1449
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1450
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1451
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1455
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1457
Dominating. 1458
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1459
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1460
setting of dual 1461
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1465
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1466
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1467
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1469
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1471
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1472
dual 1473
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1477
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1478
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1479
Dominating. 1480
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1482
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1483
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1484
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1490
Dominating. 1491
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1492
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1493
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1494
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1495
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1496
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1497
such that 1498
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1499
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1500
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1501
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, then 1502
(i) S is SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating set; 1503
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1504
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1505
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1506
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1507
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1508
connected. Then 1509
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1510
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1511
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1512
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1513
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1514
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1515
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1516
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1517
a dual SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1518
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1519
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1520
Dominating; 1521
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1522
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1523
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1524
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1525
dual SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1526
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1527
Then 1528
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1529
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1531
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1532
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1533
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1534
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1536
Then 1537
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1538
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1540
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1541
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1542
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1544
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1545
(ii) Γ = 1; 1546
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1547
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1548
Dominating. 1549
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1550
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1551
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1552
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1553
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1554
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1555
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1556
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1557
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse 1558
Dimension Dominating; 1559
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1560
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1561
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1562
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1564
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse 1565
Dimension Dominating; 1566
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1567

bnc ; 1568
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1569
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1571
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1572
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1573
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1574
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1575
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1576
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1577
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1578
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1579
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1580
SuperHyperSet. Then 1581
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1582
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1583
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1584

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1585
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperReverse 1586
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1587
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1588
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1589
SuperHyperSet. Then 1590
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse 1591
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1592
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1593

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1594
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only dual maximal SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1595
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1596
following statements hold; 1598
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1599
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1600
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1601
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1602
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1603
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1604
following statements hold; 1606
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1607
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1608
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1609
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1610
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1611
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1612
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1613
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1614
hold; 1615
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1616
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1617
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1618
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1620
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1622
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1623
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1624
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1625
hold; 1626
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1627
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1629
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1631
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1633
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1634
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1636
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1637
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1638
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1640
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1642
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1645
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1647
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1648
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1649
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1651
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1653
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; 1654
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1656
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperReverse 1658
Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1659
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1660
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1662
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1664
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1667
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperReverse 1669
Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1670
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1671
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1673
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1675
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1678
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1679
Recognition 1680
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1681
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1682
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1683
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1684
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1685
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1686
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1687
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1688
long-term Extreme function. 1689
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1690
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1691
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1692
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1693
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1694
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1695
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1696
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1697
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1698
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1699
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1700
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 1701
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1702
find either the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating or the Extreme 1703
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1704
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1705
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1706
SuperHyperModel 1707
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1708
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1709
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1710
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1711
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1712
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1713
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1714
the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1715
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1716
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1717
SuperHyperModel 1718
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1719
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1720
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1721
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1722
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1723
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1725
is the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. 1726
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1727
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1728
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1729
The SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1730
Dominating are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1731
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1732
recognitions? 1733
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1734
and the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating?

Dominating 1735
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1736
compute them? 1737
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1738
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating? 1739
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperReverse 1740
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on

Dimension Dominating 1741
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, are there else? 1742
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1743
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1744
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1745
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1746
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1747
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1748
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1749
highlighted. 1750
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1751
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1752
SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1753
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1754
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1755
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, finds the convenient 1756
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1757
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1758
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1759
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1760
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1761
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1762
the SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension 1763
Dominating. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way 1764
through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the 1765
notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1766
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1767
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1768
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1769
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1770
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1771
formally called “ SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 1772
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 1773
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating
3. Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1774
avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1775
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1776
Forms 1778
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1779
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1780
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1781
V 0 or E 0 is called 1782
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E such 1783
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1784
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1785
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1786
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1787
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1788
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1789
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1790
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1791
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1792
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1793
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1794
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1796
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1797
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1798
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1799
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1800
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1801
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1802
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1804
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1805
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1806
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1807
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1808
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1810
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1811
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1812
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1813
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1815
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1820
Extreme coefficient; 1821
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1822
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1832
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1837
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1839
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1840
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1846
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1847
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1848
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1852
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1853
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1857
Extreme coefficient. 1866
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1870
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1871
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1872
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1873
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1874
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1876
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme 1879
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1880
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1881
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1882
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1883
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1884


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1927
Then 1928
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1929
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1933
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1937
Then 1939
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1940
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1948
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1949
Then 1950
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1951
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1961
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1962
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1963
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1964
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 1969
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1970
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1971
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1972
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1973
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1974
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1982

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1985
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1986

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1992
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 2002
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2003
Proposition 12.14. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 2004
Then, 2005
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2006
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2007
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2008

∃!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 2013
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2014
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2016
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2017
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2019
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2020
Forms 2022
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2023
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2027
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2028
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2029
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2030
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2031
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2032
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2033
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2034
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2035
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2036
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2037
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2038
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2039
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2042
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2043
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2044
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2045
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2046
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2047
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2048
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2049
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2051
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2055
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2056
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2057
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2058
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2064
coefficient; 2065
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2066
coefficient; 2075
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2076
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2080
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2081
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2082
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2083
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2089
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2090
coefficient; 2099
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2100
coefficient. 2109
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2113
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2114
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2119
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2121
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2127


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2171
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

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

.
Proof. Let 2172
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2176
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2180
Then 2182

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

.
Proof. Let 2183
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2191
Then 2193
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2194

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2204
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2207
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 2212
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2213
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2214
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2216
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2225

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2228
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2229
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2230

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2233
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2234
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2235
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2246
Then, 2248

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

.
Proof. Let 2249
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2250

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2254
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2255
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2256
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2257
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2262
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2263
Forms 2265
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2266
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2270
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2271
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2272
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2273
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2274
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2275
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2276
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2277
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2278
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2279
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2280
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2281
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2284
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2286
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2290
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2291
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2293
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2297
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2298
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2299
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2300
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2306
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2308
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2318
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2319
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2323
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2325
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2326
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2327
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2332
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2333
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2334
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2343
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2356
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2362
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2370


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2414
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2415
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2419
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2423
Then 2425
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2426
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2434
Then 2436
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2437

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2447
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2450
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 2455
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2456
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2457
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2458
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2459
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2468

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2471
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2472

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2476
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2477
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2478
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2489
Then, 2491
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2492
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2493

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2497
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2498
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2499
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2500
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2505
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2506
Forms 2508
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2509
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2513
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2514
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2515
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2516
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2517
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2518
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2519
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2520
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2521
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2522
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2523
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2524
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2527
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2529
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2533
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2534
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2536
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2540
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2541
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2542
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2543
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2549
coefficient; 2550
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2551
coefficient; 2560
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2561
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2565
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2566
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2567
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2568
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2574
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2575
coefficient; 2584
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2585
coefficient. 2594
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2598
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2604
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2612


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2656
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2657
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2661
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2665
Then 2667
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2668
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2676
Then 2678
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2679
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2689
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2692
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2697
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2698
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2701
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2710

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2713
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2714
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2715

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2718
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2719
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2731
Then, 2733
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2734
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2735

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2739
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2740
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2741
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2742
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2747
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2748
Forms 2750
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2751
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2755
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2756
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2757
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2758
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2759
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2760
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2761
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2762
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2763
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2764
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2765
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2766
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2767
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2768
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2771
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2773
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2776
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2778
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2779
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2782
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2783
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2784
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2785
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2786
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2787
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2794
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2796
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2797
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2806
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2811
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2813
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2814
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2818
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2819
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2820
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2821
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2822
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2823
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2824
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2831
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2832
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2844
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2845
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2846
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2847
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2848
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2849
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2850
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2851
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2854
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2855
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2856
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2857
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2859


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2923
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2924
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2928
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2932
Then 2934
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2935
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2938
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2943
Then 2945
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2946
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2956
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2959
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2964
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2965
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2968
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2969
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2977
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2980
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2981

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2985
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2986
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2998
Then, 3000
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3001
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3002

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3006
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3007
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3008
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3009
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3015
17 Background 3016
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3017
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3018
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3019
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3020
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3021
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3022
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3023
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3024
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3025
with pages 32-55. 3026
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3027
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3028
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3029
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3030
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3031
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3032
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3033
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3034
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3035
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3036
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3037
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3038
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3039
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3040
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3041
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3042
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3043
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3044
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3045
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3046
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3047
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3048
SuperHyperNumbers. 3049
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3050
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3051
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3052
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3053
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3054
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3055
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3056
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3057
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3058
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3059
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3060
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3061
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3062
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3063
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3064
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3065
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3066
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3067
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3068
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3069
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3070
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3071
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3072
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3073
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3074
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3075
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3076
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3077
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3078
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3079
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3080
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3081
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3082
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3083
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3084
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3085
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3086
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3087
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3088
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3089
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3090
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3091
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3092
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3093
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3094
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3095
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3096
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3097
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3098
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3099
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3100
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3101
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3102
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3103
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3104
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3105
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3106
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3107
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3108
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3109
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3110
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3111
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3112
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3113
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3114
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3115
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3116
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3117
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3118
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3119
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3120
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3121
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3122
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3123
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3124
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3125
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [186] by Henry 3126
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3127
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3128
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [187] by Henry Garrett 3129
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3130
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3131
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [188] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3132
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3133
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3134
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [189] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3135
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3136
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [192] by 3137
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3138
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3139
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [193] by Henry 3140
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3141
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3142
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [196] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3143
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3144
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [199] by Henry 3145
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3146
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3147
in Ref. [200] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3148
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3149
Ref. [201] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3150
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3151
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [202] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3152
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3153
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [203] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3154
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3155
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [204] by Henry Garrett 3156
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [215] by Henry 3158
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3159
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3160
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [216] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [?, 4–216], there 3161
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3162
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3163
at [217–338]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3164
readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [339, 340]. 3165
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3166
proposed as book in Ref. [339] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3167
Scholar and has more than 4728 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3168
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3169
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3170
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3171
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3172
proposed as book in Ref. [340] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3173
Scholar and has more than 5721 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3174
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3175
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3176
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3177
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3178
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3179
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3180
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3181
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3182
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [?, 4–216] 3183
alongside scientific research books at [217–338]. Two popular scientific research books 3184
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic 3185
science is on [339, 340]. 3186
References 3187
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3188
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3189
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3190
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3191
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3192
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3193
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3194
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3195
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3196
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3197
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3198
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3199
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3200
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3201
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3202
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3203
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3204
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3205
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3206
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3207
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3208
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3209
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3210
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3211
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3212
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3213
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3214
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3215
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3216
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3217
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3218
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3219
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3220
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3221
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3222
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3223
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3224
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3225
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3226
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3227
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3228
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3229
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3230
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3231
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3232
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3233
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3234
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3235
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3236
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3237
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3238
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3239
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3240
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3241
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3242
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3243
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3244
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3245
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3246
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3247
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3248
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3249
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3250
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3251
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3252
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3253
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3254
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3255
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3256
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3257
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3258
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3259
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3260
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3261
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3262
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3263
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3264
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3265
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3266
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3267
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3269
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3273
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3274
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3275
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3276
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3277
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3278
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3279
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3280
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3281
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3282
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3283
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3284
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3285
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3286
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3287
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3288
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3289
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3290
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3291
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3292
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3294
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8067384). 3295
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Equal 3296
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3297
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8067409). 3298
SuperHyperGraph By Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3300
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8061927). 3301
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Dimension 3302
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3303
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8062016). 3304
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3306
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8057696). 3307
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse 3308
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3309
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3312
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8052893). 3313
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Equal 3314
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3315
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super 3318
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346). 3319
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 3320
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3324
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3326
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3330
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3331
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3332
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3333
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3334
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3336
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3337
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3338
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3339
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3340
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3342
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3344
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3345
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3348
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3349
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3350
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3352
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3354
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3355
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3356
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3357
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3360
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3361
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3362
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3363
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3364
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3365
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3366
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3368
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3369
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3371
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3374
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3377
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3380
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3381
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3383
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3386
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3388
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3389
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3392
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3395
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3398
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3399
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3401
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3404
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3405
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3407
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3410
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3413
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3416
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3419
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3422
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3423
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3425
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3426
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3428
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3429
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3431
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3434
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3437
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3438
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3440
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3443
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3444
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3445
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3447
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3448
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3450
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3451
78. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3452
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3453
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3456
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3459
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3460
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3462
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3463
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3465
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3468
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3471
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3474
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3477
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3480
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3483
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3486
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3489
91. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3491
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3492
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3493
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3495
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3498
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3499
94. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3500
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3502
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3504
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3507
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3510
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3511
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3513
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3514
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3516
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3517
100. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3518
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3519
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3520
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3522
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3525
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3528
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3529
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3531
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3534
106. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3536
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3538
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3540
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3542
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3543
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3546
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3548
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3549
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3552
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3554
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3556
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3558
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3560
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3561
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3564
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3565
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3567
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3570
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3572
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3574
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3576
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3577
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3579
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3581
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3583
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3585
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3586
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3587
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3588
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3589
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3591
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3592
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3593
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3594
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3597
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3599
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3600
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3603
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3605
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3606
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3609
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3611
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3613
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3615
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3616
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3617
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3618
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3621
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3622
135. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3623
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3624
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3627
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3628
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3629
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3630
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3633
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3634
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3635
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3636
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3639
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3640
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3641
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3642
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3645
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3646
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3647
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3648
144. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3650
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3651
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3654
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3655
146. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3656
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3657
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3660
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3661
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3662
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3663
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3666
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3668
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3669
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3672
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3674
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3675
153. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3677
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3678
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3681
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3684
156. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3686
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3687
157. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3689
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3690
158. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3692
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3693
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3694
159. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3695
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3696
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3697
160. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3698
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3699
161. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3701
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3702
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3703
162. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3704
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3705
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3706
163. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3707
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3708
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3709
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3710
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3713
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3714
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3717
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3718
166. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3719
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3721
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3722
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3725
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3726
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3729
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3730
169. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3731
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3732
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3733
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3734
170. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3735
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3736
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3737
171. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3738
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3739
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3740
172. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3741
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3742
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3743
173. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3744
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3745
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3746
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3747
174. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3748
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3749
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3750
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3751
175. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3752
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3753
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3754
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3755
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3756
176. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3757
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3758
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3759
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3760
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3761
177. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3762
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3763
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3764
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3765
178. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3766
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3767
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3768
179. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3769
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3770
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3772
180. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3773
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3774
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3775
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3776
181. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3777
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3778
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3779
182. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3780
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3781
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3782
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3783
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3784
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3785
183. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3786
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3787
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3788
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3789
184. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3790
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3791
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3792
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3793
185. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3794
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3795
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3796
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3797
186. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3798
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3799
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3800
187. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3801
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3802
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3803
188. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3805
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3806
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3807
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3808
189. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3809
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3810
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3811
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3812
190. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3813
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3814
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3815
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3816
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3818
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3819
192. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3820
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3821
193. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3823
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3824
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3825
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3830
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3834
196. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3835
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3836
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3837
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3838
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3841
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3843
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3844
199. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3845
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3846
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3849
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3850
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3852
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3853
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3856
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3857
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3859
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3860
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3863
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3864
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3866
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3867
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3869
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3874
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3875
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3879
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3880
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3883
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3886
211. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3887
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3888
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3889
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3890
212. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3891
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3892
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3893
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3894
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3897
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3898
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3901
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3902
215. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3903
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3904
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3905
216. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3906
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3907
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3908
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3909
217. Henry Garrett, “Equal Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3910
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8067469). 3911
218. Henry Garrett, “Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3912
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8062076). 3913
219. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3914
220. Henry Garrett, “Equal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3916
221. Henry Garrett, “Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3918
222. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3920
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 3921
223. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3922
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 3923
224. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3924
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 3925
225. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3926
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 3927
226. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3928
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 3929
227. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3930
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 3931
228. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3932
229. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3934
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 3935
230. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3936
231. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3938
232. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3940
233. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3942
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 3943
234. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3944
235. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3946
236. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3948
237. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3950
238. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3952
239. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3954
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3955
240. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3956
241. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3958
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3959
242. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3960
243. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3962
244. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3964
245. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3966
246. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3968
247. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3970
248. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3972
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3973
249. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3974
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3975
250. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3976
251. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3978
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3979
252. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3980
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3981
253. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3982
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3983
254. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3984
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 3985
255. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3986
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3987
256. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3988
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3989
257. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3990
258. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3992
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3993
259. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3994
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3995
260. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3996
261. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3998
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3999
262. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4000
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4001
263. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4002
264. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4004
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4005
265. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4006
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4007
266. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4008
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4009
267. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4010
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4011
268. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4012
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4013
269. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4014
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4015
270. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4016
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4017
271. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4018
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4019
272. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4020
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4021
273. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4022
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4023
274. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4024
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4025
275. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4026
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4027
276. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4028
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4029
277. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4030
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4031
278. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4032
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4033
279. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4034
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4035
280. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4036
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4037
281. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4038
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4039
282. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4040
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4041
283. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4042
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4043
284. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4044
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4045
285. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4046
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4047
286. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4048
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4049
287. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4050
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4051
288. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4052
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4053
289. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4054
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4055
290. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4056
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4057
291. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4058
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4059
292. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4060
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4061
293. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4062
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4063
294. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4064
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4065
295. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4066
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4067
296. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4068
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4069
297. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4070
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4071
298. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4072
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4073
299. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4074
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4075
300. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4076
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4077
301. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4078
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4079
302. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4080
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4081
303. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4082
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4083
304. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4084
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4085
305. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4086
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4087
306. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4088
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4089
307. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4090
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4091
308. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4092
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4093
309. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4094
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4095
310. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4096
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4097
311. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4098
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4099
312. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4100
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4101
313. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4102
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4103
314. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4104
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4105
315. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4106
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4107
316. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4108
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4109
317. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4110
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4111
318. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4112
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4113
319. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4114
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4115
320. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4116
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4117
321. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4118
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4119
322. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4120
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4121
323. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4122
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4123
324. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4124
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4125
325. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4126
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4127
326. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4128
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4129
327. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4130
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4131
328. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4132
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4133
329. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4134
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4135
330. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4136
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4137
331. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4138
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4139
332. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4140
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4141
333. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4142
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4143
334. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4144
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4145
335. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4146
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4147
336. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4148
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4149
337. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4150
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4151
338. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4152
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4153
339. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4154
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4155
340. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4156
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4157
View publication stats

New Ideas On Super Dimity by Hyper Dimple of Reverse Dimension Dominating in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas On Super Dimity by Hyper Dimple of Reverse Dimension Dominating in Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse Dimension Dominating

Preprint · June 2023

503 PUBLICATIONS 21,601 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse 2

Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating). Let a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S 10

be a Reverse 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-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating criteria holds 14

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

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating criteria holds 19

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating criteria holds 21

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

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

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

Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 24

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

Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperReverse 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

SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse 29

Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 30

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

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

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

and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperReverse 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

SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating 44

SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 45

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 46

v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 47

Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 49

Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 50

SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 51

consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 52

corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperReverse Dimension 54

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

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 56

v-SuperHyperReverse Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperReverse Dimension 57

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 59

the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 60

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 61