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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371807572
New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Strict Connective Dominating In

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8076399
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
505 PUBLICATIONS 21,967 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 23 June 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Strict 2
Connective 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
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10
S is a Strict Connective Dominating pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11
V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating criteria holds 14
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 : ∃Vc ∈ VN SHG , Vc ∈ Ea , Eb

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

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

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

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective 23
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 24
v-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective 25
Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic 26
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 27
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 28
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective 29
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 30
Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 32
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 33
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 34
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 35
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective 36
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 37
re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, 38
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 39
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 40
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 41
of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 42
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict 43
Connective Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 44
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 45
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 47
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 48
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 49
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 50
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 51
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 52
and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 53
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 54
e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, 55
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict 56
Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 57
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 58
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 59
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 60
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 61
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective 62
Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an 63
Extreme V-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 64
e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, 65
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict 66
Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 67
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 68
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 69
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 70
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperStrict Connective 71
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 72
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 74
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 76
of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 77
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 78
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; an Extreme V-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating 79
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, 80
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict 81
Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) 82
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 83
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 84
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an 85
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 86
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme 87
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 88
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating 89
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, 90
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict 91
Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) 92
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 93
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 94
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 95
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 96
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 97
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective 98
Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In 99
this scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 100
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 101
Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes 102
further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 103
on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 104
whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 105
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 106
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 107
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 108
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 109
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 110
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 111
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 112
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 113
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 114
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 115
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 116
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 117
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 118
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 119
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 120
δ−SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 121
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 122
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 123
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 124
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 125
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating 126
is a maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 127
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 128
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 129
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 130
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 131
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 132
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 133
version of a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating . Since there’s more ways to get 134
type-results to make a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating more understandable. For the 135
sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, there’s a need to 136
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices 137
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 138
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 139
Assume a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 140
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The 141
Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to 142
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The 143
Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The 144
SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The 145
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum 146
Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of 147
Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the 148
next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperStrict Connective 149
Dominating . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous 150
definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperStrict 151
Connective Dominating until the SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, then it’s officially called a 152
“SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperStrict Connective 153
Dominating . There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition 154
titled a “SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and 155
discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 156
SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating . For the sake of having a 157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion 158
of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating” and a “Neutrosophic 159
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 160
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 161
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 162
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 163
Table holds. And a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 164
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 165
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 166
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating 167
more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 168
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 169
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 170
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 171
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating”, “Neutrosophic 172
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 173
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 174
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating” 175
where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperStrict 176
Connective Dominating amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 177
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating .] SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating . A graph is a 178
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 179
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 180
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 181
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperStrict 182
Connective Dominating if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 183
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 184
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 185
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 186
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 187
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 188
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 189
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 190
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 191
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 192
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 193
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 194
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 195
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 196
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 197
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 198
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 199
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 200
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 201
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 202
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 203
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 204
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 205
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 206
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 207
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 208
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 209
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 210
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStrict Connective 211
Dominating, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 212
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperStrict Connective 213
Dominating or the strongest SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating in those Neutrosophic 214
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, called 215
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, and the strongest SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, 216
called Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, some general results are 217
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only 218
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 219
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. There isn’t 220
any formation of any SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating but literarily, it’s the 221
deformation of any SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it 222
doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating 223
theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 224
Keywords: Extreme SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Cancer’s 225
Extreme Recognition 226
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 227
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 228
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 229
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 230
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 231
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 232
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 233
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 234
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 235
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 236
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 237
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 238
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 239
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 240
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 241
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 242
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 243
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 244
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 245
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 246
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 247
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 248
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 249
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 250
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 251
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 252
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 253
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 254
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 255
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 256
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 257
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 258
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 259
formally called “ SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 260
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 261
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 262
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 263
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 264
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 265
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 266
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 267
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 268
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 269
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 270
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 271
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 272
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 273
either the optimal SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating or the Extreme SuperHyperStrict 274
in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are

Connective Dominating 275
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s 276
have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 277
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. There 278
isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating but literarily, it’s the 279
deformation of any SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it 280
doesn’t form. 281
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 282
find the “ amount of SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating” of either individual of cells or the 283
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 284
of SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 285
group of cells? 286
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 287
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 288
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 289
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ SuperHyperStrict 290
Connective Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating” on 291
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 292
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 293
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 294
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 295
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 296
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 297
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 298
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 299
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 300
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 301
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 302
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 303
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperStrict Connective 304
Dominating and Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, are figured out in sections “ 305
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating”. In 306
the sense of tackling on getting results and in Strict Connective Dominating to make sense about 307
continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme 308
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 309
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 310
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back 311
to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 312
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 313
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 314
Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 315
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 316
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 317
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 318
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating”, 319
“Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 320
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 321
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 322
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 323
presented in section, “ SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating”. The keyword of this research 324
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 325
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 326
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 327
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 328
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 329
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 330
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 331
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 332
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 333
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 334
Research On the Redeemed Ways 335
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 336
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 337
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.5,p.2), 338
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 339
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 340
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 341
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [1],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 342
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 343
(Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 344
to Ref. [218]. 345
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 346
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 347
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.1,p.1). 348
Let X be a Strict Connective Dominating of points (objects) with generic elements in X

denoted by x; then the Neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}
+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 349
+
]− 0, 1 [. 350
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2). 351
Let X be a Strict Connective Dominating of points (objects) with generic elements in X

denoted by x. A single valued Neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by
truth-membership function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a
falsity-membership function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1].
A SVNS A can be written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 3.3. The degree of truth-membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued Neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [1],Definition 352
2.5,p.2). 353
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 354
pair S = (V, E), where 355
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 356
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 357
1, 2, . . . , n); 358
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 359
V; 360
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 361
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 362
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 363
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 364
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 365
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 366
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,
IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

and FV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[FV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0
where i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 . 367
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 368
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 369
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 370
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 371
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 372
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 373
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 374
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 375
the ii0 th element of the Strict Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic 376
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 377
and E are crisp sets. 378
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 379
(Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3). 380
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 381
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 382
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 383
characterized as follow-up items. 384
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 385
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 386
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 387
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 388
HyperEdge; 389
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 390
SuperEdge; 391
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 392
SuperHyperEdge. 393
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 394
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 395
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3). 396
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 397
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 398
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 399
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 400
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 401
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 402
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 403
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 404
pair S = (V, E), where 405
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 406
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 407
1, 2, . . . , n); 408
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 409
V; 410
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 411
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 412
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 413
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 414
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 415
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ).
P
(viii) i0 416
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 417
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 418
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 419
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 420
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 421
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 422
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 423
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 424
the ii0 th element of the Strict Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic 425
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 426
and E are crisp sets. 427
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 428
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 430
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 431
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 432
characterized as follow-up items. 433
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 434
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 435
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 436
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 437
HyperEdge; 438
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 439
SuperEdge; 440
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 441
SuperHyperEdge. 442
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 443
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 444
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 445
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 446
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 447
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 448
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 449
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 450
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 451
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 452
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 453
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 454
given SuperHyperEdges; 455
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 456
SuperHyperEdges; 457
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 458
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 459
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 460
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 461
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 462
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 463
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 464
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 465
common SuperVertex. 466
Definition 3.14. Let a pair S = (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)

S. Then a sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 467
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 468
of following conditions hold: 469
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 470
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 471
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 481
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 482
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 483
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 484
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 485
SuperHyperPath . 486
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 487
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). A

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have 489
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 490
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 491
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 492
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 493
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 494
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 495
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 496
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 497
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 498
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 499
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 500
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 501
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 502
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 504
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 505
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 507
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 508
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 509
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 510
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict 511
Connective Dominating). 512
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 514
either V 0 or E 0 is called 515
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if the following expression 516
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating criteria holds 517

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

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

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

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 527
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if it’s either of 528
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict 529
Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, and 530
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 531
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating). 532
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 534
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 535
e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Connective 536
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic 537
rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 538
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 539
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 540
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 541
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 542
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 543
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if it’s either of 544
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 547
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 549
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 550
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 551
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 552
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if 553
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 554
re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Connective 555
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) 556
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 559
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 560
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; and the Extreme power is 562
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 563
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating 564
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict 565
Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 566
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 568
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 569
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 570
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 571
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 572
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to 574
its Neutrosophic coefficient; 575
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if it’s either of 576
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 579
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 580
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 581
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 582
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 584
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if it’s either of 585
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 588
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 590
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 591
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 592
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 593
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating 594
Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 598
Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 599
Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 600
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 601
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 602
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; and the Extreme 603
power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 604
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating 605
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 609
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 610
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 611
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 612
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 613
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to 615
its Neutrosophic coefficient. 616
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating). 617
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 618
(i) an δ−SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of 619
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating such that either of the following 620
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 621
s∈S: 622
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 623
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 624
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind 625
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating such that either of the following 626
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 627
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 628
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 629
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 630
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 631
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, there’s a 632
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 633
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 634
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 635
assign to the values. 636
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 637
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 638
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 639
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 640
understandable. 641
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 642
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 643
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, 644
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 645
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 646
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 647
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 648
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 649
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict 650
. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic

SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 652
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, there’s a 653
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective 654
Dominating”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the 655
labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 656
position of labels to assign to the values. 657
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. It’s redefined a 658
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 659
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The

Strict Connective Dominating 660
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 661
Forms 662
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 663

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 664
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 665
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 666
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 667
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 668
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 670
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 671
s-independent criteria 672
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. 673
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 674
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 675
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Any k-function Strict Connective Dominating 677
like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Strict Connective 678
Dominating like E is called Extreme Variable. 679
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 680
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 681
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 683
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 684
Expectation criteria 685
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 686
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. an Extreme number is called 688
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 689
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). 690
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let m and n propose special Strict 691
Connective Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 692
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 693
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 694
independently with probability Strict Connective Dominating p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 695
H := G[S]. 696
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: 697
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
698
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 699
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 700
points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines √ in the plane 701
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 702
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 703
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points on the 704
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 705
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 706
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 707
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 708
2 3
l < 32n /k . 709
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 711
points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 712
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 713
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 714
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 715
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 716

P n−1
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0 ni = n 717
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
718
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 719
between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at 720
least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 721
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 722
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 723
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 724
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 725
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 726
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 727
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 728
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 729
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let X be a 730
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 731
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. 732
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 733
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let Xn be a 734
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Strict Connective Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 735
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 736
Proof. 737
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 738
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. A special 739
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 740
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is 742
up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 743
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 744
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 745
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 746
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 747
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 748
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 749
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 750
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: 751
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 752
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 753
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 754
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 755
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 756
number at most k. 757
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 758
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 760
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 761
Variance criteria 762
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let X be an 764
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 765
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let 767
t be a positive real number. Then 768
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ 2
= .
t t2
769
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let Xn be an 771
Extreme Variable in a probability Strict Connective Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 772
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 773
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 775
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 776
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 777
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, 779
set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 780
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 781
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. As in the proof of related Theorem, 783
the result is straightforward. 784
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 786
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 787
∗ ∗ ∗
(i). f (k ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k − 2 or k − 1, 788
or 789
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 790
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 792
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 793
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 795
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 796
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 797
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 798
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 799
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 800
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let F be a fixed Extreme 802
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 803
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 804
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. Let F be a 806
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 807
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 808
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 809
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Connective Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 811
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 812
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 813
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 814
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 815
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 816
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 817
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 818
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 819
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 820
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 821
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 822
C(N SHG)Extreme Strict Connective Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Strict Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Strict Connective Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Strict Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.3)
823
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 826
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 827
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 828
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 829
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 830
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperStrict 831
Connective Dominating. 832

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
833

straightforward. 836

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
837

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
841




{E2 }.
= z 6−c .
{V5 }.
= z 7−c .
845

{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
849


{E15 , E16 , E17 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
853

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



857

{E3i+1 , E23 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 , V11 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
861

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

865

{E1 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 , V6 }.
= z 5−a .
869

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

873

{E9 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 , V6 }.
= z 5−a .
877

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .



881

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
885


{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 }.
= z 2−a .
889

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
893




{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
897

{E3i+1 }3i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2i+1 }5i=0 .
= z 2−a .
901


{E6 }.
= z 4−a .
{V1 }.
= z 6−a .
905

{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .



909

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .
913
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 914
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Strict Connective 915
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 916
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 917
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount 918
of them. 919
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 920
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 921
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 922
any given Extreme quasi-R-Strict Connective Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 923
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 924
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 925
an Extreme quasi-R-Strict Connective Dominating, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 926
of them but not all of them. 927
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-Strict Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating is 928
at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 929
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 930
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 931
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Strict Connective 932
Dominating in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with 933
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 934
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating. 935
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Strict Connective Dominating has, the least Extreme
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme
cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Strict Connective Dominating with the least Extreme cardinality, 936
the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 937
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 938
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 939
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictConnectiveDominating
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictConnectiveDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−StrictConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Strict Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the 940
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Strict Connective Dominating is the 941
cardinality of 942
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictConnectiveDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−StrictConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP 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-Strict Connective
Dominating since neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of
SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Extreme number of

SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any kind of
SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the Extreme

SuperHyperSet
V \V \{aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
This Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Strict Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Strict Connective Dominating is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Strict Connective Dominating.
It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some counterexamples to
deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and
cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction star as the examples-classes,
are well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the
examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 943
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 944
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 945
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 946
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 947
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 948
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 949
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 950
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating decorates the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this
Extreme style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the
maximum Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are

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

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 951
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 952
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 953
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 954
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-Strict Connective
Dominating. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an Extreme
style-R-Strict Connective Dominating. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge

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

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

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating. Let
E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 955
Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
956
Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating =

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

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

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Strict Connective Dominating ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Strict Connective Dominating is 1027
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1028
GExtreme Strict Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1029
technical definition for the Extreme Strict Connective Dominating. 1030
GExtreme Strict Connective Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme Strict 1031
Connective Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1032

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1033

= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1034


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1035
GExtreme Strict Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

1036

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

1037


1038


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1039
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1040
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1041
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1042
Quasi-Strict Connective Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1043
Quasi-Strict Connective Dominating” since “Extreme Quasi-Strict Connective Dominating” happens 1044
“Extreme Strict Connective Dominating” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1045
and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1046
Strict Connective Dominating” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1047
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1048
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1049
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Strict Connective Dominating”, and “Extreme Strict 1050
Connective Dominating” are up. 1051
Thus, let 1052
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1053
GExtreme Strict Connective Dominating be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1054
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Strict Connective Dominating and the new terms are 1055
up. 1056
GExtreme Strict Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1057

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1058

∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1059

And with go back to initial structure, 1060
GExtreme Strict Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

1061

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

1062


1063


Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1064
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Strict Connective Dominating if for 1065
any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1066
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1067
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1068
them. 1069
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1070
are coming up. 1071
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating. The
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1072
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1073
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1074
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1075
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1076
Extreme Strict Connective Dominating is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the

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

. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Dominating
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1077
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1078
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1079
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Strict 1080
Connective Dominating and it’s an Extreme Strict Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1081
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 Strict Connective Dominating. There isn’t only less than
two Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Strict
, not:
Connective Dominating
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1082
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1083
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1084
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1085
“Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating” 1086
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1087
Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating, 1088
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-Strict Connective Dominating amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Strict Connective Dominating, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1089
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower
sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating is the cardinality
of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1090
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Strict Connective 1091
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1092
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 1093
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any 1094
amount of them. 1095
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1096
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1097
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1098
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1099
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1100
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating with the least 1101
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1102
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1103
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1104
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1105
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Strict Connective 1106
Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1107
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1109
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1110
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1111
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme R-Strict 1112
Connective Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that 1113
there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1114
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1115
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1116
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1117
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1118
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1119
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1120
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Strict Connective Dominating, VESHE 1121
is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Strict Connective 1122
Dominating, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme 1123
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1124
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1125
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1126
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1127
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1128
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1129
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Strict Connective 1130
Dominating only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1131
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1132
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1133
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1134
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1135
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1136
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Strict Connective Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1137
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1138
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1139
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Strict Connective Dominating. The Extreme SuperHyperSet 1140
of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1141
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−StrictConnectiveDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−StrictConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme . The

Strict Connective Dominating 1142
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1143
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Strict Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1144
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1145
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1147
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1148
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1149
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1150
non-obvious Extreme Strict Connective Dominating is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1151
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Strict Connective Dominating is an Extreme 1152
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1153
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1154
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 1155
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1156
Extreme Strict Connective Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1157
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1158
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 Strict Connective 1159
Dominating. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1160
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1161
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Strict Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1162
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1163
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1164
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Strict Connective Dominating 1165
and it’s an Extreme Strict Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1166
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1168
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1169
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1170
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1171
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Strict Connective Dominating , 1172
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 Strict Connective 1173
, not:
Dominating 1174
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1175
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 1176
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1177
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1178
“Extreme Strict Connective Dominating ” 1179
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1180
Extreme Strict Connective Dominating , 1181
is only and only 1182
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1183
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1184
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1185
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1186
SuperHyperClasses. 1187
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1188

|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 1189
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1190
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 SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1191
There’s a new way to redefine as 1192
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 1193
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1194
The latter is straightforward. 1195
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1196
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1197
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1198
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1199
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme Super-

HyperStrict Connective Dominating in the Example (16.5)
Then 1200

|E |
{E3i+2 }i=0ESHP .
| min |E | |Ei |
{E3i+2 } ESHP
=z i=0 .
EXT ERN AL |E |
{V2i+2 }i=0ESHP .
| min |E | |Vi |
=z 2i+2 i=0 .
Proof. Let 1201
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1202
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1203

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1208
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1209
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1210
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1211

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

SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1212
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1213
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1214
a new way to redefine as 1215

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1219
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1220
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1221
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1222
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1223
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1224
Then 1225

|P min |
{E3i+2 }i=0
ESHP
.
| min |E | |Ei |
{P min } ESHP
=z 3i+2 i=0 .
EXT ERN AL |P min |
{V2i+2 }i=0
ESHP
.
| min |P min |
|Vi |
=z 2i+2 i=0 .
Proof. Let 1226
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj | , E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | .
j N SHG
1227
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1228

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperStrict Connective 1232
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1233
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating could be applied. There are only two 1234
SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the 1235
representative in the 1236
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating taken from a connected Extreme 1237
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1238
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating in the Example (16.11)
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1239
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1241
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1242
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1243
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1244
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1245
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1246
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1247
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1248

|P min |
{E3i+2 }i=0
ESHP
.
| min |E | |Ei |
{P min } ESHP
=z 3i+2 i=0 .
EXT ERN AL |P min |
{V2i+2 }i=0
ESHP
.
| min |P min |
|Vi |
=z 2i+2 i=0 .
Proof. Let 1249
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
1250
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 1252

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperStrict Connective 1255
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1256
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1257
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1258
the 1259
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1260
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1261
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1264
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1265
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1266
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1267
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1268
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1269
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1270
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating in the Example (16.13)
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1271
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1272

{Ei }.
= z |Ei | .
{CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1273
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1274
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1276

Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.15)
The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperStrict Connective 1279
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1280
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded 1281
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating proposes some longest SuperHyperStrict Connective 1282
Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1283
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1284
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1285
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1286
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1287
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1288
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1289
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1290
For the SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, 1291
and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, some general results are introduced. 1292
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating is 1293
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1294
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. Then 1295
Extreme SuperHyperStrictConnectiveDominating =
{theSuperHyperStrictConnectiveDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperStrictConnectiveDominating
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperStrictConnectiveDominating. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1296
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1297
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1298
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1299
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and 1300
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating coincide. 1301
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1303
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1304
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1306
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1307
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1308
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating is 1309
its SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and reversely. 1310
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, 1311
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1312
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating 1313
is its SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and reversely. 1314
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1315
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStrict Connective 1316
Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1317
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1318
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStrict 1319
Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1320
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1322
Then its Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1323
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1324
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1325
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStrict Connective 1326
Dominating is well-defined. 1327
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1328
its Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1329
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating is well-defined. 1330
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1332
Then its Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1333
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating is well-defined. 1334
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1335
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1336
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1337
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1338
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1339
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1340
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1341
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1342
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1343
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1344
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1345
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1346
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1347
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1348
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1349
independent SuperHyperSet is 1350
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1351
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1352
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1353
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1354
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1355
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1356
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1357
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1358
a maximal 1359
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1360
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1361
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1362
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1363
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1364
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1365
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1366
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1367
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1368
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1369
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1370
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1371
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1372
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1373
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1374
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1375
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1377
number of 1378
(i) : the SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1379
(ii) : the SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1380
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1381
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1382
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1383
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1384
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1385
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1386
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1388
(i) : the dual SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1389
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1390
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1391
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1392
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1393
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1394
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1395
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1398
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1399
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1400
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1401
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1405
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1406
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1407
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1410
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1411
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1412
is a 1413
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1417
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1418
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1419
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1422
number of 1423
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1427
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1428
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1429
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1430
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1431
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1432
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1434
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1435
(iv) : SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1439
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1440
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1441
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1442
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1443
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1444
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1445
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1446
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1450
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective 1452
Dominating. 1453
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1454
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1455
setting of dual 1456
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1460
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1461
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1462
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1464
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1466
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1467
dual 1468
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1472
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1473
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1474
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1476
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1477
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1478
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective 1484
Dominating. 1485
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1486
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1487
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1488
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1489
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1490
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1491
such that 1492
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1493
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1494
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1495
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, then 1496
(i) S is SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating set; 1497
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1498
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1499
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1500
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1501
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1502
connected. Then 1503
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1504
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1505
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1506
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1507
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1508
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1509
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1510
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1511
a dual SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1512
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1513
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective 1514
Dominating; 1515
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1516
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1517
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1518
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1519
dual SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1520
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. Then 1521
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1522
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1524
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1525
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1526
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1527
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. Then 1529
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1530
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1532
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1533
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1534
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1536
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1537
(ii) Γ = 1; 1538
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1539
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperStrict Connective 1540
Dominating. 1541
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1542
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1543
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1544
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1545
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1546
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1547
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1548
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1549
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict 1550
Connective Dominating; 1551
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1552
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1553
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1554
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1556
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict 1557
Connective Dominating; 1558
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1559

bnc ; 1560
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1561
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1563
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1564
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1565
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating for N SHF; 1566
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1567
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1568
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperStrict 1569
Connective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1570
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1571
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1572
SuperHyperSet. Then 1573
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1574
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating for N SHF; 1575
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1576

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1577
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperStrict Connective 1578
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1579
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1580
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1581
SuperHyperSet. Then 1582
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict 1583
Connective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1584
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1585

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1586
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only dual maximal SuperHyperStrict Connective 1587
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1588
following statements hold; 1590
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1591
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, then S is an 1592
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1593
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1594
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, then S is a dual 1595
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1596
following statements hold; 1598
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1599
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, then S is an 1600
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1601
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1602
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, then S is a dual 1603
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1604
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1605
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1606
hold; 1607
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1608
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1609
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1610
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1612
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1614
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1615
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1616
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1617
hold; 1618
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1619
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1621
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1623
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1625
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1626
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1628
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1629
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1630
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1632
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1634
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1637
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1639
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1640
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1641
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1643
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1645
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; 1646
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1648
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperStrict 1650
Connective Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1651
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1652
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1654
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1656
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1659
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperStrict 1661
Connective Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1662
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1663
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1665
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1667
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1670
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1671
Recognition 1672
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1673
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1674
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1675
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1676
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1677
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1678
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1679
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1680
long-term Extreme function. 1681
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1682
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1683
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1684
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1685
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1686
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1687
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1688
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1689
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1690
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1691
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1692
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 1693
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1694
find either the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating or the Extreme 1695
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1696
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1697
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1698
SuperHyperModel 1699
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1700
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1701
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1702
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1703
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1704
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1705
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1706
the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1707
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1708
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1709
SuperHyperModel 1710
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1711
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1712
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1713
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1714
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1715
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1717
is the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1718
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1719
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1720
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1721
The SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective 1722
Dominating are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1723
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1724
recognitions? 1725
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperStrict Connective 1726
and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating?

Dominating 1727
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1728
compute them? 1729
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1730
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating? 1731
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict 1732
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on

SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, are there else? 1734
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1735
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1736
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1737
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1738
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1739
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1740
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1741
highlighted. 1742
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1743
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1744
SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1745
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1746
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1747
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, finds the convenient 1748
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1749
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1750
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1751
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1752
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1753
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1754
the SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating. 1755
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 1756
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1757
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1758
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1759
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1760
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1761
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1762
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1763
formally called “ SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 1764
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 1765
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. SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating
3. Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1766
avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1767
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1768
Forms 1770
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1771
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1772
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1773
V 0 or E 0 is called 1774
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1775
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1776
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1777
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1778
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1779
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1780
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1781
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1782
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1783
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1784
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1785
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1786
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1788
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1789
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1790
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1791
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1792
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1793
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1794
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1796
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1797
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1798
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1799
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1800
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1801
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1803
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1804
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1805
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1807
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1812
Extreme coefficient; 1813
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1814
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1824
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1831
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1832
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1836
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1838
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1839
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1840
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1844
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1845
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1849
Extreme coefficient. 1858
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1862
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1863
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1864
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1865
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1866
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1868
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 1871
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1872
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1873
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1874
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1875
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1876


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). 1919
Then 1920
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 1921
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 1925
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1929
Then 1931
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 1932
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1940
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1941
Then 1942
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 1943
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1953
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1954
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1955
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 1956
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 1961
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1962
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1963
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1964
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1965
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1966
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1974

= {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 1977
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1978

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1984
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), 1994
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1995
Proposition 12.14. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1996
Then, 1997
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 1998
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 1999
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2000

∃!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 2005
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2006
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2008
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2009
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2011
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2012
Forms 2014
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2015
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E , ∃Ej ∈ E , such that 2019
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2020
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2021
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2022
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2023
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2024
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2025
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2026
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2027
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2028
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2029
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2030
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2031
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2034
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2035
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2036
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2037
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2038
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2039
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2040
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2041
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2043
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2047
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2048
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2049
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2050
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2056
coefficient; 2057
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2058
coefficient; 2067
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2068
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2072
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2073
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2074
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2075
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2081
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2082
coefficient; 2091
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2092
coefficient. 2101
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2105
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2106
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2111
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. 2113
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2119


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 2163
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 2164
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2168
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2172
Then 2174

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

.
Proof. Let 2175
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2183
Then 2185
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 2186

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2196
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 2199
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 2204
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2205
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2206
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2208
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2217

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 2220
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2221
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2222

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2225
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2226
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2227
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. 2238
Then, 2240

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

.
Proof. Let 2241
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2242

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2246
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2247
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2248
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2249
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2254
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2255
Forms 2257
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2258
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2262
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2263
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2264
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2265
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2266
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2267
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2268
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2269
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2270
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2271
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2272
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2273
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2276
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2278
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2282
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2283
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2285
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2289
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2290
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2291
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2292
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2298
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2300
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2310
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2311
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2317
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2318
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2319
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2322
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2324
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2325
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2326
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2335
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2348
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2354
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. 2362


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 2406
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 2407
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2411
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2415
Then 2417
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 2418
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2426
Then 2428
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2429

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2439
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 2442
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 2447
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2448
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2449
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2450
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2451
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2460

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 2463
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2464

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2468
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2469
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2470
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. 2481
Then, 2483
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2484
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2485

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2489
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2490
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2491
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2492
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2497
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2498
Forms 2500
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2501
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2505
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2506
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2507
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2508
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2509
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2510
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2511
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2512
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2513
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2514
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2515
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2516
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2519
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2521
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2525
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2526
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2528
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2532
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2533
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2534
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2535
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2541
coefficient; 2542
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2543
coefficient; 2552
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2553
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2557
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2558
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2559
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2560
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2566
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2567
coefficient; 2576
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2577
coefficient. 2586
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2590
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2596
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. 2604


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 2648
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 2649
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2653
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2657
Then 2659
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 2660
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. 2668
Then 2670
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 2671
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2681
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 2684
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2689
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2690
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2693
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2702

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 2705
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2706
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2707

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2710
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2711
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. 2723
Then, 2725
∗
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 2726
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2727

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2731
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2732
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2733
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2734
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2739
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2740
Forms 2742
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2743
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2747
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2748
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2749
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2750
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2751
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2752
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2753
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2754
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2755
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2756
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2757
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2758
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2759
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2760
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2763
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2765
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2766
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2767
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2768
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2770
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2771
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2774
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2775
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2776
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2777
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2778
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2779
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2786
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2788
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2789
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2798
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2802
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2803
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2805
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2806
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2810
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2811
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2812
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2813
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2814
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2815
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2816
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2823
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2824
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2836
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2837
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2838
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2839
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2840
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2841
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2842
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2843
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 2846
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2847
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2848
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2849
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2851


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 2915
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 2916
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 2920
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2924
Then 2926
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 2927
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 2930
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2935
Then 2937
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 2938
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2948
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 2951
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2956
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2957
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2960
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2961
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2969
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 2972
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2973

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2977
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2978
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. 2990
Then, 2992
∗
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 2993
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2994

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2998
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2999
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3000
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3001
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3007
17 Background 3008
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3009
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3010
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3011
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3012
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3013
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3014
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3015
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3016
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3017
with pages 32-55. 3018
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3019
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3020
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3021
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3022
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3023
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3024
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3025
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3026
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3027
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3028
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3029
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3030
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3031
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3032
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3033
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3034
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3035
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3036
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3037
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3038
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3039
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3040
SuperHyperNumbers. 3041
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3042
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3043
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3044
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3045
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3046
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3047
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3048
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3049
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3050
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3051
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3052
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3053
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3054
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3055
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3056
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3057
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3058
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3059
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3060
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3061
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3062
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3063
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3064
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3065
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3066
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3067
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3068
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3069
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3070
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3071
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3072
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3073
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3074
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3075
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3076
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3077
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3078
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3079
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3080
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3081
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3082
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3083
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3084
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3085
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3086
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3087
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3088
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3089
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3090
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3091
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3092
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3093
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3094
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3095
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3096
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3097
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3098
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3099
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3100
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3101
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3102
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3103
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3104
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3105
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3106
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3107
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3108
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3109
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3110
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3111
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3112
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3113
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3114
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3115
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3116
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3117
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [188] by Henry 3118
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3119
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3120
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [189] by Henry Garrett 3121
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3122
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3123
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [190] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3124
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3125
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3126
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [191] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3127
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3128
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [194] by 3129
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3130
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3131
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [195] by Henry 3132
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3133
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3134
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [198] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3135
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3136
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [201] by Henry 3137
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3138
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3139
in Ref. [202] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3140
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3141
Ref. [203] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3142
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3143
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [204] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3144
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3145
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [205] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3146
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3147
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [206] by Henry Garrett 3148
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3149
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [217] by Henry 3150
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3151
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3152
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [218] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–218], there 3153
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3154
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3155
at [219–341]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3156
readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [342, 343]. 3157
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3158
proposed as book in Ref. [342] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3159
Scholar and has more than 4728 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3160
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3161
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3162
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3163
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3164
proposed as book in Ref. [343] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3165
Scholar and has more than 5721 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3166
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3167
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3168
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3169
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3170
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3171
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3172
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3173
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3174
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–218] 3175
alongside scientific research books at [219–341]. Two popular scientific research books 3176
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic 3177
science is on [342, 343]. 3178
References 3179
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3180
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3181
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3182
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3183
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3184
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3185
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3186
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3187
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3188
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3189
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3190
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3191
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3192
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3193
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3194
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3195
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3196
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3197
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3198
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3199
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3200
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3201
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3202
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3203
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3204
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3205
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3206
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3207
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3208
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3209
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3210
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3211
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3212
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3213
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3214
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3215
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3216
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3217
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3218
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3219
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3220
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3221
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3222
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3223
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3224
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3225
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3226
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3227
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3228
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3229
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3230
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3231
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3232
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3233
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3234
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3235
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3236
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3237
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3238
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3239
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3240
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3241
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3242
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3243
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3244
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3245
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3246
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3247
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3248
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3249
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3250
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3251
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3252
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3253
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3254
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3255
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3256
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3257
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3258
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3259
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3261
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3265
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3266
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3267
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3268
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3269
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3270
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3271
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3272
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3273
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3274
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3275
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3276
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3277
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3278
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3279
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3280
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3281
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3282
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3283
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3284
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On 3286
Super Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8072171). 3287
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse 3288
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3289
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8072267). 3290
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3292
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8067384). 3293
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Equal 3294
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3295
SuperHyperGraph By Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3298
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8061927). 3299
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Dimension 3300
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3301
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8062016). 3302
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3304
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8057696). 3305
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse 3306
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3307
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3310
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8052893). 3311
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Equal 3312
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3313
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super 3316
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346). 3317
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 3318
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3322
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3324
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3328
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3329
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3330
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3331
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3332
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3334
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3335
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3336
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3337
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3338
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3340
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3342
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3343
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3346
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3347
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3348
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3350
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3352
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3353
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3354
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3355
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3358
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3359
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3360
51. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3361
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3362
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3363
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3364
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3366
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3367
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3369
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3372
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3375
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3378
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3379
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3381
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3384
59. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3386
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3387
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3390
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3393
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3396
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3397
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3399
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3402
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3403
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3405
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3408
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3411
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3414
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3417
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3420
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3421
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3423
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3424
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3426
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3427
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3429
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3432
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3435
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3436
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3438
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3441
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3442
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3443
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3445
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3446
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3448
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3449
80. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3450
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3451
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3454
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3457
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3458
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3460
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3461
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3463
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3466
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3469
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3472
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3475
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3478
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3481
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3484
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3487
93. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3489
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3490
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3491
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3493
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3496
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3497
96. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3498
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3500
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3502
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3505
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3508
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3509
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3511
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3512
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3514
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3515
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3516
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3517
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3518
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3520
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3523
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3526
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3527
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3529
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3532
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3534
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3536
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3538
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3540
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3541
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3544
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3546
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3547
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3550
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3552
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3554
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3556
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3558
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3559
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3562
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3563
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3565
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3568
120. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3570
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3572
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3574
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3575
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3577
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3579
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3581
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3583
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3584
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3585
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3586
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3587
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3589
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3590
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3591
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3592
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3595
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3597
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3598
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3601
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3603
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3604
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3607
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3609
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3611
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3613
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3614
135. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3615
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3616
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3619
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3620
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3621
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3622
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3625
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3626
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3627
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3628
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3631
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3632
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3633
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3634
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3637
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3638
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3639
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3640
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3643
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3644
145. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3645
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3646
146. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3648
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3649
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3652
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3653
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3654
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3655
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3658
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3659
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3660
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3661
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3664
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3666
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3667
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3670
154. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3672
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3673
155. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3675
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3676
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3679
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3682
158. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3684
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3685
159. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3687
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3688
160. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3690
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3691
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3692
161. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3693
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3694
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3695
162. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3696
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3697
163. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3699
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3700
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3701
164. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3702
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3703
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3704
165. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3705
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3706
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3707
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3708
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3711
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3712
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3715
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3716
168. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3717
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3719
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3720
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3723
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3724
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3727
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3728
171. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3729
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3730
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3731
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3732
172. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3733
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3734
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3735
173. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3736
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3737
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3738
174. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3739
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3740
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3741
175. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3742
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3743
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3744
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3745
176. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3746
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3747
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3748
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3749
177. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3750
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3751
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3752
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3753
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3754
178. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3755
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3756
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3757
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3758
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3759
179. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3760
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3761
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3762
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3763
180. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3764
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3765
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3766
181. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3767
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3768
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3770
182. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3771
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3772
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3773
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3774
183. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3775
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3776
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3777
184. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3778
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3779
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3780
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3781
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3782
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3783
185. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3784
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3785
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3786
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3787
186. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3788
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3789
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3790
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3791
187. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3792
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3793
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3794
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3795
188. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3796
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3797
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3798
189. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3799
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3800
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3801
190. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3803
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3804
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3805
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3806
191. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3807
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3808
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3809
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3810
192. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3811
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3812
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3813
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3814
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3816
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3817
194. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3818
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3819
195. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3821
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3822
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3823
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3828
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3832
198. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3833
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3834
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3835
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3836
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3839
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3841
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3842
201. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3843
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3844
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3847
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3848
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3850
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3851
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3854
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3855
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3857
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3858
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3861
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3862
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3864
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3865
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3867
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3872
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3873
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3877
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3878
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3881
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3884
213. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3885
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3886
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3887
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3888
214. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3889
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3890
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3891
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3892
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3895
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3896
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3899
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3900
217. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3901
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3902
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3903
218. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3904
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3905
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3906
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3907
219. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3908
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8072310). 3909
220. Henry Garrett, “Equal Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3910
221. Henry Garrett, “Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3912
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8062076). 3913
222. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3914
223. Henry Garrett, “Equal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3916
224. Henry Garrett, “Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3918
225. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3920
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 3921
226. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3922
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 3923
227. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3924
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 3925
228. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3926
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 3927
229. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3928
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 3929
230. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3930
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 3931
231. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3932
232. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3934
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 3935
233. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3936
234. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3938
235. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3940
236. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3942
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 3943
237. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3944
238. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3946
239. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3948
240. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3950
241. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3952
242. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3954
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3955
243. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3956
244. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3958
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3959
245. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3960
246. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3962
247. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3964
248. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3966
249. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3968
250. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3970
251. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3972
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3973
252. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3974
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3975
253. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3976
254. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3978
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3979
255. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3980
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3981
256. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3982
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 3983
257. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3984
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 3985
258. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3986
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 3987
259. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3988
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 3989
260. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3990
261. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3992
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 3993
262. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3994
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 3995
263. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3996
264. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3998
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 3999
265. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4000
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4001
266. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4002
267. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4004
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4005
268. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4006
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4007
269. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4008
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4009
270. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4010
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4011
271. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4012
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4013
272. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4014
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4015
273. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4016
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4017
274. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4018
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4019
275. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4020
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4021
276. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4022
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4023
277. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4024
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4025
278. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4026
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4027
279. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4028
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4029
280. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4030
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4031
281. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4032
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4033
282. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4034
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4035
283. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4036
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4037
284. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4038
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4039
285. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4040
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4041
286. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4042
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4043
287. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4044
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4045
288. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4046
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4047
289. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4048
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4049
290. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4050
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4051
291. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4052
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4053
292. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4054
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4055
293. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4056
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4057
294. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4058
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4059
295. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4060
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4061
296. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4062
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4063
297. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4064
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4065
298. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4066
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4067
299. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4068
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4069
300. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4070
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4071
301. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4072
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4073
302. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4074
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4075
303. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4076
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4077
304. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4078
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4079
305. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4080
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4081
306. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4082
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4083
307. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4084
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4085
308. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4086
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4087
309. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4088
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4089
310. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4090
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4091
311. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4092
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4093
312. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4094
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4095
313. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4096
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4097
314. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4098
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4099
315. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4100
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4101
316. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4102
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4103
317. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4104
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4105
318. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4106
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4107
319. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4108
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4109
320. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4110
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4111
321. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4112
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4113
322. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4114
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4115
323. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4116
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4117
324. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4118
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4119
325. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4120
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4121
326. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4122
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4123
327. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4124
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4125
328. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4126
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4127
329. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4128
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4129
330. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4130
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4131
331. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4132
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4133
332. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4134
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4135
333. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4136
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4137
334. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4138
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4139
335. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4140
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4141
336. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4142
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4143
337. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4144
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4145
338. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4146
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4147
339. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4148
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4149
340. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4150
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4151
341. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4152
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4153
342. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4154
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4155
343. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4156
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4157
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

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

Preprint · June 2023

505 PUBLICATIONS 21,967 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Strict 2

Connective 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

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

S is a Strict Connective Dominating pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11

V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating criteria holds 14

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

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating criteria holds 16

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 18

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating criteria holds 19

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating criteria holds 21

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

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

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 24

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

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

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

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

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

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 30

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

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

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

Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective 36

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

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

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

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

cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 41

of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 42

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict 43

Connective Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperStrict Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 44

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

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

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

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

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

Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 51

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

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

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

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

is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 58

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 60

Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 61

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Connective 62