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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371832359
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8078445
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
508 PUBLICATIONS 22,492 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
Featured Articles View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 24 June 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Unequal Connective Dominating As 3
Hyper Conceit On Super Con 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10
S is a Unequal 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-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 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)) 6=
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-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 15
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating criteria holds 16

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

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

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 23
Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 24
v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective 25
Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperUnequal 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
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 29
Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 32
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 33
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 34
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 35
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 36
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 37
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal 38
Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and 39
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 40
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 41
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 42
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 43
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective 44
Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 45
Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 49
Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 50
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 51
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 52
form the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the Extreme power is 53
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 54
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 58
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 59
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 60
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 61
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 62
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the 63
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 64
V-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 65
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 69
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 70
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 71
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperUnequal 72
Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 73
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal 74
Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and 75
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 77
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnequal 80
Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 81
e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective 82
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic 83
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 84
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients 85
defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 86
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 87
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 88
form the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the Extreme power is 89
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 90
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 94
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 95
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 96
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 97
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 98
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 99
Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In 100
this scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 101
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 102
Dominating. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the 103
research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and 104
SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature 105
review is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the 106
significancy of this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other 107
SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions 108
are followed by the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with 109
different tools. The applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical 110
aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to 111
figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special 112
case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. 113
Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. 114
These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 115
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 116
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 117
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 118
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 119
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 120
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 121
δ−SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 122
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 123
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 124
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 125
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 126
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperUnequal Connective 127
Dominating is a maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 128
Neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 129
Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 130
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 131
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 132
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 133
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 134
version of a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating . Since there’s more ways to get 135
type-results to make a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating more understandable. For 136
the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, there’s a need to 137
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating ”. The 138
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 139
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 140
assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating . It’s redefined a 141
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the mentioned Table holds, 142
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 143
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, 144
“The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of 145
The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 146
Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 147
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The 148
maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m 149
going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a 150
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 151
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 152
have all SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating until the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 153
then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” but otherwise, it isn’t a 154
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating . There are some instances about the clarifications 155
for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating ”. These two 156
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 157
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 158
. For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, there’s a 159
need to “redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” 160
and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and 161
the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In 162
this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 163
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic 164
SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperUnequal Connective 165
Dominating are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” if the 166
intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. 167
Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 168
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 169
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 170
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 171
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 172
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 173
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 174
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 175
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 176
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” where it’s the strongest [the 177
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating amid the 178
maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 179
.] SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 180
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 181
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 182
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 183
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s 184
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s 185
SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; 186
it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 187
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 188
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 189
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 190
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 191
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 192
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 193
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 194
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 195
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 196
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 197
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 198
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 199
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 200
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 201
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 202
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 203
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 204
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 205
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 206
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 207
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 208
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 209
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 210
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 211
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 212
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 213
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 214
either the longest SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating or the strongest SuperHyperUnequal 215
Connective Dominating in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 216
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, called SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, and the 217
strongest SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, called Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 218
Connective Dominating, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, 219
all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since 220
it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 221
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperUnequal 222
Connective Dominating but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperUnequal Connective 223
Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with 224
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and 225
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 226
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 227
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 228
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 229
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 230
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 231
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 232
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 233
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 234
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 235
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 236
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 237
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 238
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 239
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 240
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 241
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 242
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 243
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 244
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 245
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 246
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 247
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 248
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 249
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 250
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 251
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 252
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 253
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 254
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 255
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 256
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 257
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 258
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 259
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 260
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 261
formally called “ SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 262
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 263
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 264
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 265
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 266
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 267
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 268
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 269
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 270
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 271
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 272
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 273
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 274
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 275
either the optimal SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating or the Neutrosophic 276
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 277
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 278
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 279
since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 280
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperUnequal 281
Connective Dominating but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperUnequal Connective 282
Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 283
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 284
find the “ amount of SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” of either individual of cells or the 285
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 286
of SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups 287
of group of cells? 288
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 289
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 290
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 291
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 292
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 293
Dominating” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the 294
research has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some 295
connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates 296
us to get some instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of 297
this research. The general results and some results about some connections are some 298
avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more 299
understandable and more clear. 300
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 301
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 302
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 303
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 304
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 305
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 306
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperUnequal Connective 307
Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, are figured out in 308
sections “ SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 309
Connective Dominating”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Unequal Connective 310
Dominating to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform 311
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, 312
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, 313
titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 314
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 315
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 316
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 317
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 318
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 319
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 320
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 321
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 322
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating”, 323
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. 324
There are curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make 325
sense about excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the 326
description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperUnequal 327
Connective Dominating”. The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in 328
Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 329
SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 330
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 331
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 332
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 333
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 334
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 335
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 336
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 337
Research On the Redeemed Ways 338
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 339
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 340
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.5,p.2), 341
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 342
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 343
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 344
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [1],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 345
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 346
(Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 347
to Ref. [220]. 348
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 349
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 350
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.1,p.1). 351
Let X be a Unequal 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 352
+
]− 0, 1 [. 353
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2). 354
Let X be a Unequal 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 355
2.5,p.2). 356
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 357
pair S = (V, E), where 358
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 359
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 360
1, 2, . . . , n); 361
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 362
V; 363
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 364
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 365
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 366
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 367
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 368
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 369
(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 . 370
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 371
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 372
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 373
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 374
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 375
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 376
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 377
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 378
the ii0 th element of the Unequal Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic 379
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 380
and E are crisp sets. 381
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 382
(Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3). 383
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 384
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 385
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 386
characterized as follow-up items. 387
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 388
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 389
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 390
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 391
HyperEdge; 392
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 393
SuperEdge; 394
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 395
SuperHyperEdge. 396
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 397
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 398
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3). 399
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 400
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 401
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 402
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 403
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 404
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 405
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)). 406
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 407
pair S = (V, E), where 408
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 409
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 410
1, 2, . . . , n); 411
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 412
V; 413
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 414
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 415
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 416
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 417
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 418
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 419
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 420
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 421
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 422
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 423
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 424
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 425
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 426
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 427
the ii0 th element of the Unequal Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic 428
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 429
and E are crisp sets. 430
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 431
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 433
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 434
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 435
characterized as follow-up items. 436
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 437
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 438
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 439
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 440
HyperEdge; 441
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 442
SuperEdge; 443
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 444
SuperHyperEdge. 445
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 446
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 447
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 448
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 449
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 450
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 451
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 452
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 453
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 454
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 455
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 456
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 457
given SuperHyperEdges; 458
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 459
SuperHyperEdges; 460
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 461
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 462
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 463
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 464
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 465
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 466
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 467
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 468
common SuperVertex. 469
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 470
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 471
of following conditions hold: 472
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 478
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 479
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 480
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 481
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 482
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 483
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. 484
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 485
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 486
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 487
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 488
SuperHyperPath . 489
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 490
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 492
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 493
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 494
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 495
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 496
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 497
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 498
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 499
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 500
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 501
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 502
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 503
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 504
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 505
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 507
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 508
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 510
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 511
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 512
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 513
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 514
Connective Dominating). 515
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 517
either V 0 or E 0 is called 518
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following 519
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 520
criteria holds 521

(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following 522
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 523
criteria holds 524

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 525
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following 526
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 527
criteria holds 528

(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following 529
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 530
criteria holds 531

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 532
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of 533
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 534
re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective 535
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 536
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating). 537
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 540
e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective 541
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic 542
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 543
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 544
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 545
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 546
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 547
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 548
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of 549
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) 552
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 553
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 557
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 558
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 559
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 562
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 563
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 564
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 565
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the Extreme power is 567
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 568
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 569
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 570
Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 571
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic 572
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 573
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 574
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 575
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 576
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 577
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 578
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the 579
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 580
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of 581
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 585
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 586
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 587
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 589
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of 590
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 594
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 595
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 598
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 599
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 603
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 604
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 605
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 606
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 607
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the Extreme power is 609
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 610
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 611
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 615
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 618
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the 621
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 622
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating). 623
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 624
(i) an δ−SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of 625
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating such that either of the following 626
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 627
s∈S: 628
|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 629
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 630
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic 631
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating such that either of the 632
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 633
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 634
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.22)
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 635
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 636
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 637
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, there’s a 638
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 639
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 640
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 641
assign to the values. 642
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 643
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 644
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 645
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 646
understandable. 647
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 648
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 649
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 650
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 651
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 652
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 653
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 654
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 655
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 656
Connective Dominating. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic 657
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 658
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, there’s a 659
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 660
Connective Dominating”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by 661
the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 662
position of labels to assign to the values. 663
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. It’s redefined a 664
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 665

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But As Unequal Connective Dominating 666
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 667
Forms 668
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 669
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of 671
V is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 672
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 673
probability of A. 674
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 675
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 677
called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 678
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 679
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 680
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 681
criteria 682
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 683
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Any k-function Unequal Connective 685
Dominating like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function 686
Unequal Connective Dominating like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 687
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 688
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 689
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 691
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 692
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 693
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 694
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. A Neutrosophic number is called 696
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 697
Crossing criteria 698
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 699
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let m and n 700
propose special Unequal Connective Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 701
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 702
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 703
Neutrosophic independently with probability Unequal Connective Dominating p := 4n/m, and set 704
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 705
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 706
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
707
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 708
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let P be a 709
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 710
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 711
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 712
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 713
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points 714
on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 715
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 716
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 717
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 718
2 3
again l < 32n /k . 719
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let P be a 721
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 722
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 723
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 724
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 725
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 726
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 727
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 12 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
728
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 729
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on 730
the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 731
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 732
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 733
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 734
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 735
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 736
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 737
4/3 4/3
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 738
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 739
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let X be a 740
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 741
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. 742
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 743
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let Xn be a 744
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Unequal Connective Dominating 745
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 746
Proof. 747
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. A special 749
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 750
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. A special 752
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of 753
k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 754
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 755
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 756
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 757
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 758
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 759
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 760
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 761
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: 762
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 763
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 764
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 765
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 766
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 767
stability number at most k. 768
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 769
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 771
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 772
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 773
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let X be a 775
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 776
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let X be a Neutrosophic 778
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 779
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
780
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let Xn be a 782
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Unequal Connective Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 783
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 784
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Set X := Xn and 786
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 787
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 788
when Xn = 0. 789
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . 791
For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k 792
for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 793
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 794
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. As in the proof of related 796
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 797
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 799
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 800
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 801
or 802
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 803
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. The latter is 805
straightforward. 806
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 807
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 809
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 810
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 811
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 812
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 813
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 814
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 816
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 817
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 818
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let F be a 820
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 821
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 822
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 823
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. The latter is 825
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 827
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 828
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 829
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 830
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 831
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 832
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 833
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 834
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 835
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 836
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 837
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 838
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Unequal Connective Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Unequal Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
839
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 842
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 843
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 844
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 845
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 846
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 847

excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 848

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
849
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 852

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
853



{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
857


{E2 }.
= z 6−c .
{V5 }.
= z 7−c .
861

{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
865


{E15 , E16 , E17 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
869

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



873

{E3i+1 , E23 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 , V11 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
877

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)
881

{E1 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 , V6 }.
= z 5−a .
885

(16.3)

{E1 }.
= z 5−a .
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }.
= z 5−a .
889

{E9 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 , V6 }.
= z 5−a .
893

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .
897

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
901

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 }.
= z 2−a .
905

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
909

{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
913

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }3i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2i+1 }5i=0 .
= z 2−a .
917

{E6 }.
= z 4−a .
{V1 }.
= z 6−a .
921

(16.3)

{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .
925

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .
929
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 930
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 931
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating if for any of them, and any of other 932
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 933
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 934
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 935
amount of them. 936
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 937
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 938
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 939
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating minus all Neutrosophic 940
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 941
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 942
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating, 943
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 944
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Unequal Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective 945
Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 946
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 947
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 948
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 949
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating in 950
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 951
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 952
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective 953
Dominating. 954
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Unequal Connective Dominating has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Unequal Connective Dominating with the least Neutrosophic 955
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 956
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 957
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 958
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nequalConnectiveDominating

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nequalConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nequalConnectiveDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−U nequalConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Unequal Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, 959
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Unequal Connective 960
Dominating is the cardinality of 961

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nequalConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nequalConnectiveDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−U nequalConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Unequal
Connective Dominating since neither amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor amount of
SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of

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

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

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

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

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

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Unequal 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 962
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 963
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 964
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 965
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 966
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 967
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 968
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 969
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating decorates

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Neutrosophic connections
so as this Neutrosophic style implies different versions of Neutrosophic

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

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 970
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 971
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 972
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 973
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 974
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

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

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

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

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective

E
Dominating. Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices belong to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) .

Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 975
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
976
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating =

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal 977
Connective Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 978
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 979
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 980
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 981
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating 982
in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 983
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 984
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective 985
Dominating. 986
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 987
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 988
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 989
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 990
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 991
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 992
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 993
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 994
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 995
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 996
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 997
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating 998
where the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus 999
it’s, literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Unequal Connective Dominating. The 1000
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In 1001
the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1002
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1003
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1004
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 1005
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 1006
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1007
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1008
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1009
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1010
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct 1011
types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective 1012
Dominating. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one 1013
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the 1014
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In 1015
the embedded Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior 1016
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 1017
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 1018
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1019
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1020
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1021
R-Unequal Connective Dominating. The Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating with the 1022
exclusion of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1023
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating with 1024
the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1025
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating. To sum them up, 1026
in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s 1027
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1028
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1029
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating minus all Neutrosophic 1030
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 1031
an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1032
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating, 1033
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1034
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating has two titles. a 1035
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1036
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1037
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating with 1038
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1039
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1040
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1041
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominatings for all Neutrosophic 1042
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1043
Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of 1044
the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating, again and more in the operations of 1045
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominatings acted on the all possible 1046
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic 1047
number. This Neutrosophic number is 1048
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Unequal Connective 1049
Dominatings. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1050
GNeutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1051
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating. Then 1052
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating is 1053
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1054
GNeutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number
{SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1055
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating. 1056
GNeutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1057
Unequal Connective Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1058

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1059

= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1060


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1061
GNeutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Clas

1062

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

1063


1064


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1065
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1066
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1067
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1068
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Unequal Connective Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the 1069
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Unequal Connective Dominating” since “Neutrosophic 1070
Quasi-Unequal Connective Dominating” happens “Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating” in a 1071
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1072
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic Unequal 1073
Connective Dominating” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1074
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1075
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1076
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-Unequal Connective Dominating”, 1077
and “Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating” are up. 1078
Thus, let 1079
zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1080
GNeutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1081
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating and the new 1082
terms are up. 1083
GNeutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1084

{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1085

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1086

And with go back to initial structure, 1087
GNeutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Clas

1088

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1089


1090


Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1091
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Connective 1092
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic 1093
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1094
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all 1095
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1096
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1097
are coming up. 1098
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Dominating
Is an Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1099
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1100
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1101
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic 1102
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1103
Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating is related to the Neutrosophic

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Unequal Connective
Dominating is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the
Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only

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

R-Unequal Connective Dominating. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1104
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1105
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1106
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1107
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating and it’s an 1108
Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1109
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Unequal Connective Dominating, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1110
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1111
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1112
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1113
“Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating” 1114
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1115
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating, 1116
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic Unequal
Connective Dominating, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1117
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1118
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1119
quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1120
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1121
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1122
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1123
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1124
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1125
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1126
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1127
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1128
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1129
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1130
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1131
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1132
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1133
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1134
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1135
R-Unequal Connective Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1136
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1138
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1139
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1140
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1141
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1142
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1143
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1144
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1145
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1146
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1147
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1148
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1149
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1150
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating, VESHE is up. The obvious 1151
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating, 1152
VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1153
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1154
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1155
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1156
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1157
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1158
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1159
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1160
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1161
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Connective Dominating only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1162
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1163
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1164
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1165
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1166
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1167
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1168
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Unequal Connective Dominating, is up. There’s neither 1169
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1170
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1171
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating. The 1172
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1173

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nequalConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−U nequalConnectiveDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−U nequalConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Unequal Connective 1174
Dominating. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1175
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1176

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1177
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1178
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1180
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1181
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1182
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1183
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Unequal Connective 1184
Dominating is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1185
Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only 1186
two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1187
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1188

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1189
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1190
Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1191
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1192

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Unequal 1193
Connective Dominating. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1194
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1195

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1196
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1197
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1198
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1199
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating and it’s an 1200
Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1201
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1203
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1204
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1205
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1206
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1207

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

Unequal Connective Dominating 1208

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Unequal 1209
, not:
Connective Dominating 1210

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1211

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1212
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1213
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1214
“Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating ” 1215
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1216
Neutrosophic Unequal Connective Dominating , 1217
is only and only 1218

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1219
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1220
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1221
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1222
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1223
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1224
Then 1225

|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 1226
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1227
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1228
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1229
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 1230
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1231
The latter is straightforward. 1232
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1233
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1234
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1235
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1236
Then 1237

|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 1238
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1239
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1240
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1241

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1245
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1246
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1247
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1249
Then 1250

{Ei }.
= z |Ei | .
{CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1251
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

1252
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1253
There’s a new way to redefine as 1254

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1258
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1259
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1260
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1261
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1262
Dominating. 1263
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1264
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1265

|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 1266
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
1267
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1268
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1269

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1272
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1273
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating could be applied. There are only two 1274
SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the 1275
representative in the 1276
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1277
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1278
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1279
solution 1280
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1282
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1283
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1284
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1285
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1286
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1287
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1288
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1289

|P min |
{E3i+2 }i=0
ESHP
.
| min |E | |Ei |
{P min } ESHP
=z 3i+2 i=0 .
EXT ERN AL |P min |
{V2i+2 }i=0
ESHP
.
| min |P min |
|Vi |
=z 2i+2 i=0 .
Figure 26. Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Example
(16.11)
Proof. Let 1290
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
1291
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 1293

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1296
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1297
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 1298
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Example (16.13)
SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the 1299
representative in the 1300
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1301
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1302
solution 1304
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1306
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1307
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1308
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1309
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1310
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1311
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1312
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1313
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1314

{Ei }.
= z |Ei | .
{CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1315
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1316
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1318

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1321
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1322
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded 1323
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating proposes some longest SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1324
Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1325
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1327
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1328
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1329
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1330
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1332
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1333
For the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1334
Dominating, and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, some general results 1335
are introduced. 1336
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is 1337
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1338
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. Then 1339
N eutrosophic SuperHyperU nequalConnectiveDominating =

{theSuperHyperU nequalConnectiveDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperU nequalConnectiveDominating
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperU nequalConnectiveDominating. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1340
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1341
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1342
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1343
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and 1344
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating coincide. 1345
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1347
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1348
Dominating. 1349
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1351
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1352
Dominating. 1353
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1354
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1355
Dominating is its SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and reversely. 1356
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1357
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1358
SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1359
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is its SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and reversely. 1360
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1361
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal 1362
Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1363
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1364
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1365
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1366

Dominating 1368
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating isn’t 1369
well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1370
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1371
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1372
Dominating is well-defined. 1373
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1374
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1375
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is well-defined. 1376

Dominating 1378
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is 1379
well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is well-defined. 1380
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1381
is 1382
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1383
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1384
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1385
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1386
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1387
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1388
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1389
∅ is 1390
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1391
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1392
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1393
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1394
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1395
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1396
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1397
independent SuperHyperSet is 1398
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1399
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1400
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1401
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1402
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1403
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1404
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1405
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V 1406
is a maximal 1407
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1408
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1409
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1410
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1411
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1412
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1413
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1414
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1415
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1416
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1417
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1418
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1419
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1420
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1421
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1422
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1423
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1425
number of 1426
(i) : the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1427
(ii) : the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1428
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1429
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1430
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1431
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1432
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1433
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1434
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1436
(i) : the dual SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1437
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1438
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1439
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1440
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1441
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1442
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1443
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1446
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1447
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1448
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1449
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1453
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1454
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1455
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1458
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1459
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1460
is a 1461
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1465
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1466
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1467
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1470
number of 1471
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1475
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1476
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1477
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1478
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1479
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1480
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1482
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1483
(iv) : SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1487
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1488
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1489
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1490
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1491
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1492
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1493
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1494
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1498
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1500
Dominating. 1501
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1503
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1504
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1508
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1509
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1510
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1512
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1514
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1515
of a dual 1516
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1520
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1521
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1522
Dominating. 1523
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1525
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1526
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1527
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1533
Dominating. 1534
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1535
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1536
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1537
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1538
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1539
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1540
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then 1541
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1542
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1543
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1544
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1545
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then 1546
(i) S is SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating set; 1547
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1548
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1549
Then 1550
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1551
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1552
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1553
which is connected. Then 1554
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1555
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1556
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1557
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1558
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1559
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1560
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1561
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1562
a dual SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1563
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1564
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1565
Dominating; 1566
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1567
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1568
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1569
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1570
dual SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1571
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1572
Then 1573
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1574
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1576
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1577
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1578
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1579
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1581
Then 1582
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1583
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1585
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1586
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1587
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1589
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1590
(ii) Γ = 1; 1591
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1592
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1593
Dominating. 1594
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1595
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1596
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1597
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1598
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1599
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1600
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1601
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1602
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1603
Connective Dominating; 1604
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1605
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1606
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1607
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1609
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1610
Connective Dominating; 1611
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1612

bnc ; 1613
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1614
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1616
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1617
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1618
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating for N SHF; 1619
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1620
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1621
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1622
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1623
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1624
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1625
SuperHyperSet. Then 1626
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1627
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating for N SHF; 1628
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1629
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1630
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal 1631
Connective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1632
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1633
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1634
SuperHyperSet. Then 1635
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1636
Connective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1637
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1638

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1639
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1640
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1641
Then following statements hold; 1643
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1644
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then S is an 1645
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1646
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1647
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then S is a dual 1648
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1649
Then following statements hold; 1651
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1652
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then S is an 1653
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1654
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1655
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then S is a dual 1656
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1657
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1658
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1659
statements hold; 1660
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1661
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1662
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1663
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1665
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1667
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1668
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1669
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1670
statements hold; 1671
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1672
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1674
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1676
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1678
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1679
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1681
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1682
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1683
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1685
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1687
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1690
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1692
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1693
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1694
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1696
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1698
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1699
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1701
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1703
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1704
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1705
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1707
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1709
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1712
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1714
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1715
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1716
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1718
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1720
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1723
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1724
Neutrosophic Recognition 1725
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1726
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1727
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1728
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1729
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1730
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1731
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1732
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1733
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1734
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1735
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1736
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1737
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1738
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1739
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1740
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1741
happened and what’s done. 1742
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1743
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1744
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1745
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1746
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 1747
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 1748
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 1749
Connective Dominating or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in those 1750
Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1751
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1752
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1753
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1754
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1755
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1756
featured. 1757
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1758
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1759
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1760
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1761
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1762
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1764
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1765
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1766
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1767
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1768
Neutrosophic featured. 1769
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1770
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1771
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1772
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1773
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1774
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1776
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1777
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1778
The SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 1779
Connective Dominating are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1780
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1781
recognitions? 1782
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1783
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating?

Dominating 1784
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1785
compute them? 1786
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1787
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating? 1788
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and the Neutrosophic 1789
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1790
they’re based on SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, are there else? 1791
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1792
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1793
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1794
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1795
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1796
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1797
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1798
highlighted. 1799
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1800
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1801
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1802
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1803
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the 1804
new SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, finds the 1805
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some 1806
SuperHyperClasses and some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this 1807
research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to 1808
recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1809
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 1810
the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general 1811
results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and the 1812
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. The clarifications, instances and 1813
literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature 1814
reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 1815
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 1816
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 1817
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 1818
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 1819
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 1820
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 1821
called “ SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1822
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1823
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1824
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1825
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1826
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1827
Forms 1828
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1829
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1833
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1834
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1835
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1836
|Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1837
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1838
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1839
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1840
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1841
|Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1842
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1843
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1844
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1845
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1846
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1849
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1851
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1852
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1854
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1856
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1857
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1860
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1861
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1864
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1865
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1866
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1867
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1868
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1873
Extreme coefficient; 1874
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1875
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1876
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1878
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1879
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1880
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1881
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 1882
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 1883
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1884
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1885
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1886
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1893
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1894
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1898
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1901
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1902
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1907
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1908
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1910
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1912
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1918
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1921
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1922
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1926
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1927
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1928
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1929
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1930
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1931
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1932
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1933
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1936
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1937
SuperHyperDuality. 1942


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2005
ESHP : (V, E). Then 2006
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 2007
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 2011
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2015
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2016
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2017
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 2018
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2029
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2030
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2040
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2043
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 2048
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2049
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2050
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2051
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2052
solution 2055
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2062

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2065
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2066

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2072
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2077
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2085
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 2087
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2088
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2089
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2090

∃!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 2095
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2096
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2103
Forms 2105
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2106
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2110
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2111
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2112
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2113
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2115
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2116
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2117
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2118
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2120
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2121
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2122
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2123
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2126
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2127
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2128
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 2129
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2130
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2133
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2134
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2136
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 2137
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2141
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2142
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2143
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2144
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2145
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2150
coefficient; 2151
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2152
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2155
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2156
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2158
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2161
coefficient; 2162
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2163
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2166
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2167
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2168
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2170
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2178
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2179
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2187
coefficient; 2188
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2189
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2195
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2198
coefficient. 2199
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2203
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2204
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2205
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2206
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2207
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2208
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2209
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2210
SuperHyperJoin. 2211
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

.
Proof. Let 2285
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2289
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2293

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

.
Proof. Let 2296
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2307
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2308

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2318
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2321
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 2326
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2327
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2328
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2330
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2331
solution 2333
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2340

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2343
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2344

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2348
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2349
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2350
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2355
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2363

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

.
Proof. Let 2366
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2367

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2371
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2372
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2373
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2374
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2381
Forms 2383
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2384
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2388
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2389
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2390
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2391
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2393
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2394
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2395
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2396
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2398
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2399
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2400
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2401
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2404
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2406
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2409
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2411
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2412
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2419
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2420
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2421
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2422
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2428
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2430
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2431
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2436
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2439
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2441
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2448
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2449
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2456
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2457
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2465
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2467
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2473
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2476
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2481
SuperHyperPerfect. 2489
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2563
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2567
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2571
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2574
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2585
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2586

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2596
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2599
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 2604
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2605
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2606
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2607
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2608
solution 2611
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2618

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2621
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2622

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2626
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2627
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2628
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2633
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2641
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2644

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2645

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2649
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2650
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2651
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2652
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2659
Forms 2661
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2662
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2666
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2667
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2668
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2669
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2671
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2672
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2673
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2674
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2676
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2677
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2678
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2679
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2682
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2684
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2689
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2690
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2692
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2697
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2698
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2699
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2706
coefficient; 2707
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2708
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2714
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2717
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2719
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2724
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2726
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2727
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2734
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2735
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2743
coefficient; 2744
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2745
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2751
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2754
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2759
SuperHyperTotal. 2767
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2841
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2845
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2849
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2852
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2863
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2864
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2874
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2877
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2882
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2883
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2886
solution 2889
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2896

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2899
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2900

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2904
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2905
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2911
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2919
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2922
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2923

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2927
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2928
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2929
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2930
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2937
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2938
Forms 2939
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2940
SuperHyperConnected). 2941
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2945
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2946
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2947
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2948
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2949
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2950
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2952
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2953
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2954
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2955
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2956
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2957
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2959
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2960
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2961
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2962
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2965
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2967
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2968
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2969
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2970
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2972
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2973
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2980
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2981
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2982
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2983
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2984
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2985
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2986
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2987
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2988
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2989
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2990
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2991
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2992
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2993
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2994
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2997
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3000
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 3001
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3002
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3005
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3006
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 3007
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 3008
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3009
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3010
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3014
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3017
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3018
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3021
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 3022
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 3023
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3024
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 3025
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3027
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3029
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3032
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3035
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3038
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3039
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3043
SuperHyperConnected. 3051
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3125
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3129
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3133
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3136
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3147
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3148
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3158
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3161
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3166
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3167
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3170
solution 3173
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3180
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3183
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3188
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3189
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3195
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3203
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3206
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3208

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3211
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3212
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3213
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3214
17 Background 3222
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3223
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3224
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3225
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3226
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3227
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3228
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3229
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3230
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3231
with pages 32-55. 3232
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3233
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3234
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3235
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3236
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3237
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3238
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3239
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3240
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3241
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3242
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3243
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3244
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3245
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3246
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3247
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3248
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3249
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3250
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3251
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3252
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3253
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3254
SuperHyperNumbers. 3255
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3256
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3257
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3258
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3259
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3260
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3261
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3262
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3263
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3264
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3265
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3266
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3267
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3268
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3269
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3270
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3271
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3272
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3273
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3274
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3275
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3276
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3277
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3278
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3279
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3280
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3281
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3282
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3283
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3284
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3285
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3286
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3287
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3288
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3289
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3290
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3291
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3292
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3293
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3294
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3295
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3296
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3297
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3298
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3299
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3300
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3301
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3302
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3303
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3304
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3305
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3306
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3307
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3308
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3309
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3310
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3311
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3312
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3313
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3314
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3315
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3316
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3317
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3318
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3319
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3320
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3321
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3322
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3323
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3324
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3325
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3326
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3327
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3328
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3329
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3330
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3331
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [190] by Henry 3332
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3333
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3334
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [191] by Henry Garrett 3335
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3336
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3337
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [192] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3338
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3339
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3340
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [193] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3341
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3342
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [196] by 3343
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3344
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3345
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [197] by Henry 3346
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3347
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3348
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [200] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3349
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3350
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [203] by Henry 3351
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3352
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3353
in Ref. [204] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3354
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3355
Ref. [205] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3356
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3357
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [206] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3358
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3359
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [207] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3360
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3361
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [208] by Henry Garrett 3362
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3363
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [219] by Henry 3364
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3365
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3366
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [220] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–220], there 3367
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3368
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3369
at [221–344]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3370
readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [345, 346]. 3371
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3372
proposed as book in Ref. [345] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3373
Scholar and has more than 4728 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3374
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3375
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3376
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3377
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3378
proposed as book in Ref. [346] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3379
Scholar and has more than 5721 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3380
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3381
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3382
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3383
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3384
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3385
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3386
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3387
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3388
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–220] 3389
alongside scientific research books at [221–344]. Two popular scientific research books 3390
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic 3391
science is on [345, 346]. 3392
References 3393
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3394
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3395
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3396
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3397
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3398
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3399
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3400
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3401
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3402
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3403
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3404
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3405
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3406
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3407
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3408
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3409
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3410
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3411
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3412
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3413
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3414
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3415
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3416
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3417
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3418
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3419
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3420
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3421
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3422
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3423
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3424
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3425
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3426
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3427
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3428
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3429
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3430
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3431
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3432
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3433
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3434
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3435
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3436
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3437
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3438
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3439
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3440
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3441
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3442
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3443
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3444
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3445
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3446
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3447
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3448
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3449
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3450
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3451
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3452
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3453
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3454
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3455
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3456
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3457
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3458
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3459
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3460
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3461
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3462
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3463
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3464
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3465
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3466
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3467
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3468
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3469
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3470
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3471
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3472
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3473
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3475
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3479
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3480
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3481
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3482
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3483
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3484
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3485
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3486
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3487
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3488
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3489
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3490
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3491
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3492
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3493
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3494
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3495
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3496
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3497
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3498
SuperHyperGraph By Strict Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3500
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8076416). 3501
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Strict 3502
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3503
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8076399). 3504
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On 3506
Super Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8072171). 3507
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse 3508
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3509
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3512
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8067384). 3513
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Equal 3514
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3515
SuperHyperGraph By Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3518
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8061927). 3519
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Dimension 3520
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3521
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8062016). 3522
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3524
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse 3526
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3530
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Equal 3532
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super 3536
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346). 3537
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 3538
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3542
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3544
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3548
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3549
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3550
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3551
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3552
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3554
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3555
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3556
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3557
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3558
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3560
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3562
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3563
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3566
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3567
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3568
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3570
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3572
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3573
51. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3574
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3575
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3578
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3579
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3580
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3581
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3582
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3583
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3586
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3587
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3589
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3592
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3595
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3598
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3599
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3601
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3604
61. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3606
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3607
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3610
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3613
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3616
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3617
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3619
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3622
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3623
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3625
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3628
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3631
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3634
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3637
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3640
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3641
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3643
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3644
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3646
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3647
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3649
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3652
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3655
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3656
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3658
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3661
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3662
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3663
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3665
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3666
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3668
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3669
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3670
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3671
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3674
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3677
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3678
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3680
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3681
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3683
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3686
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3689
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3692
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3695
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3698
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3701
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3704
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3707
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3709
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3710
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3711
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3713
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3716
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3717
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3718
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3720
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3722
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3725
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3728
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3729
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3731
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3732
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3734
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3735
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3736
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3737
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3738
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3740
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3743
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3746
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3747
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3749
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3752
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3754
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3756
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3758
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3760
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3761
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3764
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3766
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3767
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3770
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3772
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3774
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3776
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3778
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3779
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3782
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3783
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3785
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3788
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3790
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3792
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3794
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3795
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3797
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3799
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3801
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3803
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3804
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3805
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3806
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3807
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3809
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3810
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3811
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3812
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3815
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3817
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3818
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3821
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3823
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3824
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3827
135. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3829
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3831
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3833
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3834
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3835
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3836
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3839
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3840
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3841
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3842
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3845
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3846
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3847
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3848
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3851
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3852
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3853
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3854
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3857
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3858
145. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3859
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3860
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3863
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3864
147. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3865
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3866
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3868
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3869
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3872
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3873
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3874
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3875
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3878
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3879
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3880
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3881
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3884
154. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3886
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3887
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3890
156. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3892
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3893
157. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3895
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3896
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3899
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3902
160. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3904
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3905
161. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3907
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3908
162. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3910
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3911
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3912
163. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3913
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3914
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3915
164. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3916
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3917
165. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3919
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3920
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3921
166. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3922
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3923
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3924
167. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3925
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3926
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3927
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3928
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3931
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3932
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3935
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3936
170. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3937
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3939
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3940
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3943
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3944
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3947
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3948
173. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3949
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3950
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3951
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3952
174. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3953
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3954
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3955
175. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3956
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3957
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3958
176. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3959
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3960
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3961
177. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3962
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3963
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3964
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3965
178. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3966
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3967
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3968
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3969
179. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3970
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3971
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3972
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3973
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3974
180. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3975
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3976
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3977
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3978
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3979
181. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3980
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3981
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3982
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3983
182. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3984
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3985
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3986
183. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3987
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3988
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3990
184. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3991
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3992
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3993
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3994
185. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3995
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3996
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3997
186. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3998
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3999
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 4000
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 4001
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 4002
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 4003
187. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 4004
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 4005
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 4006
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 4007
188. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 4008
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 4009
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 4010
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 4011
189. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 4012
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4013
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 4014
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 4015
190. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 4016
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 4017
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 4018
191. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 4019
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 4020
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 4021
192. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4023
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4024
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4025
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4026
193. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 4027
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 4028
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 4029
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 4030
194. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4031
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4032
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4033
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4034
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4036
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4037
196. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4038
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 4039
197. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 4041
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 4042
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 4043
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4048
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4052
200. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4053
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4054
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4055
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4056
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4059
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4061
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4062
203. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4063
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4064
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4067
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4068
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4070
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4071
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4074
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4075
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4077
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4078
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4081
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4082
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4084
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4085
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 4087
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4092
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4093
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 4097
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 4098
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4101
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 4104
215. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4105
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4106
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4107
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4108
216. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4109
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4110
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4111
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 4112
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4115
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4116
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4119
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 4120
219. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4121
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4122
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4123
220. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4124
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4125
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4126
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4127
221. Henry Garrett, “Strict Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4128
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8076449). 4129
222. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4130
223. Henry Garrett, “Equal Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4132
224. Henry Garrett, “Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4134
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8062076). 4135
225. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4136
226. Henry Garrett, “Equal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4138
227. Henry Garrett, “Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4140
228. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4142
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 4143
229. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4144
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 4145
230. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4146
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 4147
231. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4148
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 4149
232. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4150
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 4151
233. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4152
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 4153
234. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4154
235. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4156
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 4157
236. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4158
237. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4160
238. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4162
239. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4164
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 4165
240. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4166
241. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4168
242. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4170
243. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4172
244. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4174
245. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4176
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4177
246. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4178
247. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4180
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4181
248. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4182
249. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4184
250. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4186
251. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4188
252. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4190
253. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4192
254. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4194
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4195
255. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4196
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4197
256. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4198
257. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4200
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4201
258. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4202
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4203
259. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4204
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4205
260. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4206
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4207
261. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4208
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4209
262. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4210
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4211
263. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4212
264. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4214
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4215
265. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4216
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4217
266. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4218
267. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4220
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4221
268. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4222
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4223
269. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4224
270. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4226
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4227
271. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4228
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4229
272. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4230
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4231
273. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4232
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4233
274. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4234
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4235
275. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4236
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4237
276. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4238
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4239
277. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4240
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4241
278. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4242
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4243
279. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4244
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4245
280. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4246
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4247
281. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4248
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4249
282. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4250
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4251
283. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4252
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4253
284. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4254
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4255
285. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4256
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4257
286. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4258
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4259
287. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4260
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4261
288. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4262
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4263
289. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4264
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4265
290. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4266
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4267
291. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4268
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4269
292. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4270
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4271
293. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4272
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4273
294. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4274
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4275
295. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4276
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4277
296. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4278
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4279
297. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4280
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4281
298. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4282
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4283
299. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4284
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4285
300. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4286
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4287
301. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4288
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4289
302. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4290
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4291
303. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4292
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4293
304. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4294
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4295
305. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4296
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4297
306. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4298
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4299
307. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4300
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4301
308. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4302
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4303
309. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4304
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4305
310. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4306
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4307
311. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4308
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4309
312. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4310
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4311
313. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4312
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4313
314. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4314
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4315
315. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4316
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4317
316. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4318
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4319
317. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4320
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4321
318. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4322
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4323
319. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4324
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4325
320. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4326
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4327
321. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4328
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4329
322. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4330
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4331
323. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4332
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4333
324. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4334
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4335
325. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4336
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4337
326. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4338
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4339
327. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4340
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4341
328. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4342
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4343
329. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4344
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4345
330. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4346
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4347
331. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4348
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4349
332. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4350
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4351
333. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4352
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4353
334. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4354
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4355
335. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4356
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4357
336. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4358
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4359
337. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4360
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4361
338. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4362
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4363
339. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4364
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4365
340. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4366
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4367
341. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4368
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4369
342. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4370
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4371
343. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4372
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4373
344. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4374
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4375
345. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4376
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4377
346. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4378
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4379
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · June 2023

508 PUBLICATIONS 22,492 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

Featured Articles View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Unequal Connective Dominating As 3

Hyper Conceit On Super Con 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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

S is a Unequal 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-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following expression is called 13

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating criteria holds 14

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

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating criteria holds 19

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating criteria holds 21

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

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

Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 24

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

Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperUnequal 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

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

Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 30

v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal 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 SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 36

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

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

Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and 39

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

Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 41

SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 42

SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 43

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective 44

Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 45

Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 46

v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective 47

Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 49

Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 50

SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 51

consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 52

corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective 54

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

Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 56

v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective 57

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 59

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

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 61