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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371832376
New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Unequal Connective Dominating In

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8078543
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
509 PUBLICATIONS 22,646 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Fuzzy Logic View project
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 25 June 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Unequal 2
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
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 ∀Ea ∈ EN SHG : (T (E), I(E), F (E) 6=
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
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 76
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: Extreme SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 227
Cancer’s Extreme 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 “Extreme 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 “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 251
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 Extreme 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
Extreme 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 an 273
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 274
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 275
either the optimal SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating or the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal 276
Connective Dominating in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 277
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s 278
have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 279
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 280
There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating but literarily, it’s 281
the deformation of any SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it 282
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 “Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” 293
on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 294
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 295
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 296
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 297
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 298
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 299
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 300
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 301
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 302
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 303
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 304
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 305
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperUnequal Connective 306
Dominating and Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, are figured out in sections “ 307
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating”. 308
In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Unequal Connective Dominating to make sense 309
about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme 310
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 311
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 312
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back 313
to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 314
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 315
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 316
Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 317
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 318
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 319
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 320
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating”, 321
“Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 322
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 323
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 324
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 325
presented in section, “ SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating”. The keyword of this 326
research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 327
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 328
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 329
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 330
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 331
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 332
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 333
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 334
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 335
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 336
Research On the Redeemed Ways 337
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 338
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 339
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.5,p.2), 340
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 341
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 342
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 343
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [1],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 344
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 345
(Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 346
to Ref. [220]. 347
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 348
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 349
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.1,p.1). 350
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 351
+
]− 0, 1 [. 352
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2). 353
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 354
2.5,p.2). 355
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 356
pair S = (V, E), where 357
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 358
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 359
1, 2, . . . , n); 360
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 361
V; 362
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 363
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 364
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 365
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 366
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 367
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 368
(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 . 369
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 370
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 371
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 372
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 373
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 374
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 375
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 376
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 377
the ii0 th element of the Unequal Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic 378
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 379
and E are crisp sets. 380
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 381
(Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3). 382
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 383
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 384
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 385
characterized as follow-up items. 386
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 387
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 388
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 389
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 390
HyperEdge; 391
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 392
SuperEdge; 393
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 394
SuperHyperEdge. 395
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 396
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 397
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3). 398
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 399
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 400
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 401
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 402
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 403
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 404
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)). 405
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 406
pair S = (V, E), where 407
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 408
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 409
1, 2, . . . , n); 410
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 411
V; 412
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 413
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 414
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 415
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 416
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 417
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 418
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 419
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 420
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 421
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 422
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 423
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 424
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 425
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 426
the ii0 th element of the Unequal Connective Dominating of Neutrosophic 427
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 428
and E are crisp sets. 429
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 430
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 432
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 433
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 434
characterized as follow-up items. 435
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 436
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 437
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 438
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 439
HyperEdge; 440
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 441
SuperEdge; 442
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 443
SuperHyperEdge. 444
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 445
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 446
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 447
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 448
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 449
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 450
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 451
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 452
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 453
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 454
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 455
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 456
given SuperHyperEdges; 457
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 458
SuperHyperEdges; 459
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 460
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 461
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 462
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 463
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 464
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 465
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 466
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 467
common SuperVertex. 468
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 469
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 470
of following conditions hold: 471
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 478
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 479
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 480
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 481
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 482
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. 483
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 484
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 485
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 486
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 487
SuperHyperPath . 488
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 489
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 491
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 492
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 493
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 494
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 495
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 496
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 497
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 498
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 499
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 500
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 501
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 502
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 503
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 504
(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 506
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 507
(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 509
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 510
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 511
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 512
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 513
Connective Dominating). 514
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 516
either V 0 or E 0 is called 517
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following 518
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 519
criteria holds 520

(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following 521
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 522
criteria holds 523

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 524
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following 525
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 526
criteria holds 527

(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the following 528
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 529
criteria holds 530

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 531
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of 532
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 533
re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective 534
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 535
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating). 536
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 538
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 539
e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective 540
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic 541
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 542
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 543
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 544
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 545
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 546
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 547
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of 548
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) 551
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 552
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 553
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 556
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 557
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic 558
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 561
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 562
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 563
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 564
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the Extreme power is 566
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 567
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 568
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 569
Connective Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 570
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, and Neutrosophic 571
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 572
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 573
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 574
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 575
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 576
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 577
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the 578
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 579
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of 580
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 584
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 585
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 586
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 588
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if it’s either of 589
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 593
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 594
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 597
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 598
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 602
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 603
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 604
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 605
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 606
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the Extreme power is 608
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 609
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 610
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 614
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 615
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 616
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 617
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; and the 620
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 621
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating). 622
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 623
(i) an δ−SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of 624
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating such that either of the following 625
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 626
s∈S: 627
|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 628
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 629
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is a Neutrosophic 630
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating such that either of the 631
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 632
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 633
|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. 634
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 635
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 636
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, there’s a 637
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 638
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 639
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 640
assign to the values. 641
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 642
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 643
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 644
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 645
understandable. 646
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 647
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 648
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 649
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 650
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 651
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 652
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 653
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 654
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 655
Connective Dominating. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic 656
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 657
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, there’s a 658
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 659
Connective Dominating”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by 660
the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 661
position of labels to assign to the values. 662
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. It’s redefined a 663
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 664

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The

Unequal Connective Dominating 665
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 666
Forms 667
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 668
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 669
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 670
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 671
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 672
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 673
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 675
called Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 676
s-independent criteria 677
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 678
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 679
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 680
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Any k-function Unequal Connective 682
Dominating like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Unequal 683
Connective Dominating like E is called Extreme Variable. 684
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 685
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 686
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 688
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 689
Expectation criteria 690
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 691
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. an Extreme number is called 693
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 694
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 695
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let m and n propose special 696
Unequal Connective Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 697
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 698
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 699
independently with probability Unequal Connective Dominating p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] 700
and H := G[S]. 701
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 702
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
703
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 704
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 705
points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines √ in the plane 706
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 707
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 708
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points on the 709
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 710
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 711
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 712
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 713
2 3
l < 32n /k . 714
Theorem 4.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 715
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 716
points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 717
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 718
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 719
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 720
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 721
i = 0n−1 ni = n
P
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 722
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
723
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 724
between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at 725
least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 726
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 727
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 728
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 729
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 730
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 731
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 732
4/3 4/3
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n + n < 5n . 733
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 734
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let X be a 735
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 736
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. 737
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 738
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let Xn be a 739
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Unequal Connective Dominating 740
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 741
Proof. 742
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 743
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. A special 744
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 745
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p 747
is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 748
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 749
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 750
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 751
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 752
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 753
E(XS ) = P (XS = 1) = P (AS ) = (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 .
Let X be the number of stable SuperHyperSets of cardinality k + 1 in G. Then 754
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 755
X
E(X) = {E(XS ) : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1} = (n choose k+1)(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 .
We bound the right-hand side by invoking two elementary inequalities: 756
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 757
nk+1 e−p)(k+1)choose2 ne−pk/2k+1

E(X) ≤ =
(k + 1)! (k + 1)!
Suppose now that k = d2p−1 log ne. Then k ≥ 2p−1 log n, so ne−pk/2 ≤ 1. Because k 758
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 759
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 760
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 761
number at most k. 762
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 763
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 765
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 766
Variance criteria 767
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let X be an 769
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 770
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let X be an Extreme Variable and 772
let t be a positive real number. Then 773
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
774
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let Xn be an 776
Extreme Variable in a probability Unequal Connective Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 777
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 778
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 780
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 781
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 782
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . 784
For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k 785
for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 786
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 787
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. As in the proof of related Theorem, 789
the result is straightforward. 790
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 792
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 793
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 794
or 795
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 796
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 798
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 799
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 801
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 802
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 803
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 804
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 805
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 806
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let F be a fixed Extreme 808
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 809
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 810
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. Let F be a 812
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 813
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 814
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 815
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Connective Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 817
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 818
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 819
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 820
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 821
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 822
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 823
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 824
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 825
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 826
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.3)
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 827
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 828
C(N SHG)Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Unequal Connective Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Unequal Connective Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
829
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 832
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 833
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 834
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 835
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 836
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperUnequal 837
Connective Dominating. 838

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

839
straightforward. 842

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
843

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


847

{E2 }.
= z 6−c .
{V5 }.
= z 7−c .

851

{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
855

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

859

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
863

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



867

{E1 , E2 , E3 }.
= z 3−a .
{V12 , V13 , V14 }.
= z 3−a .
871

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

875

{E1 }.
= z 5−a .
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }.
= z 5−a .
879

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



883

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .
887

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


891

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 }.
= z 2−a .
895

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
899




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

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

907

{E6 }.
= z 4−a .
{V1 }.
= z 6−a .
911

{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .

915

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .
919
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 920
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective 921
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 922
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 923
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount 924
of them. 925
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 926
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 927
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 928
any given Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 929
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 930


SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 931
an Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 932
of them but not all of them. 933
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating is 934
at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 935
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 936
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 937
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Unequal Connective 938
Dominating in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with 939
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 940
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating. 941
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Unequal Connective Dominating has, the least Extreme
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme
cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Unequal Connective Dominating with the least Extreme 942
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 943
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 944
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 945
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nequalConnectiveDominating

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nequalConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nequalConnectiveDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−U nequalConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Unequal Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the 946
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Unequal Connective Dominating is 947
the cardinality of 948

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

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

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

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-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 Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-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 949
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 950
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 951
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 952
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 953
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 954
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 955
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 956
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating decorates the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this
Extreme style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the
maximum Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are

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

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 957
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 958
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 959
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 960
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

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

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

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

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating.

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to
the Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 961
Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
962
Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating =

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
R-Unequal Connective Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Unequal Connective 963
Dominating is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of 964
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme 965
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 966
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 967
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating in some cases but 968
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 969
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 970
contained in an Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating. 971
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 972
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 973
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 974
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 975
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 976
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 977
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 978
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 979
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 980
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 981
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating 982
where the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 983
literarily, an Extreme embedded R-Unequal Connective Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of 984
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 985
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 986
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 987
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 988
Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Extreme 989
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded 990
Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating. The interior types of the Extreme 991
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors 992
are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common 993
connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the 994
Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the 995
Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating. Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be 996
used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with 997
the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the 998
embedded Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme 999
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 1000
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Extreme 1001
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1002
Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the 1003
exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating. 1004
The Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating with the exclusion of the exclusion of all 1005
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, 1006
the Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating with the inclusion of all Extreme 1007
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme quasi-R-Unequal 1008
Connective Dominating. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme 1009
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1010
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 1011
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating minus 1012
all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1013
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 1014
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating, 1015
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1016
The main definition of the Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating has two titles. an 1017
Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 1018
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1019
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating with that quasi-maximum 1020
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1021
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1022
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1023
quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominatings for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1024
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating 1025
ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective 1026
Dominating, again and more in the operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Unequal 1027
Connective Dominatings acted on the all possible used formations of the Extreme 1028
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number is 1029
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Unequal Connective 1030
Dominatings. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1031
GExtreme Unequal Connective Dominating be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1032
and an Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating . Then 1033
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Unequal Connective Dominating ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating is 1034
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1035
GExtreme Unequal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1036
technical definition for the Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating. 1037
GExtreme Unequal Connective Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1038
Unequal Connective Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1039

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1040

= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1041


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1042
GExtreme Unequal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

1043

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

1044


1045


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1046
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1047
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1048
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1049
Quasi-Unequal Connective Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1050
Quasi-Unequal Connective Dominating” since “Extreme Quasi-Unequal Connective Dominating” happens 1051
“Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1052
and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1053
Unequal Connective Dominating” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1054
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1055
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1056
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Unequal Connective Dominating”, and “Extreme 1057
Unequal Connective Dominating” are up. 1058
Thus, let 1059
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1060
GExtreme Unequal Connective Dominating be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1061
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating and the new terms 1062
are up. 1063
GExtreme Unequal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1064

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1065

∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1066

And with go back to initial structure, 1067
GExtreme Unequal Connective Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

1068

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

1069


1070


Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1071
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective Dominating if 1072
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1073
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1074
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1075
them. 1076
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1077
are coming up. 1078
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1079
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1080
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1081
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1082
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1083
Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the

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

. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Dominating
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1084
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1085
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1086
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Unequal 1087
Connective Dominating and it’s an Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1088
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for
some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating. There isn’t only less
than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Unequal
, not:
Connective Dominating
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1089
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1090
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1091
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1092
“Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating” 1093
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1094
Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating, 1095
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating,
are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1096
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower
sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1097
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Connective 1098
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1099
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 1100
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any 1101
amount of them. 1102
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1103
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1104
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1105
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1106
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1107
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating with the 1108
least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1109
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1110
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1111
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1112
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Unequal Connective 1113
Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1114
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1116
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1117
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1118
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme R-Unequal 1119
Connective Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that 1120
there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1121
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1122
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1123
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1124
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1125
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1126
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1127
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Unequal Connective Dominating, VESHE 1128
is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Unequal 1129
Connective Dominating, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all 1130
Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1131
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1132
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1133
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1134
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1135
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1136
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Unequal Connective 1137
Dominating only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1138
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1139
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1140
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1141
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1142
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1143
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Unequal Connective Dominating, is up. There’s neither 1144
empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme 1145
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1146
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating. The Extreme 1147
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1148

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nequalConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−U nequalConnectiveDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−U nequalConnectiveDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating . The 1149
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1150

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1151
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1152
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1154
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1155
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1156
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1157
non-obvious Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1158
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating is an Extreme 1159
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1160
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1161

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1162
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1163
Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1164
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1165

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Unequal Connective 1166
Dominating. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1167
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1168

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1169
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1170
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1171
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating 1172
and it’s an Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating. Since it’s 1173
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1175
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1176
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1177
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1178

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating , 1179

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Unequal Connective 1180
, not:
Dominating 1181

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1182

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1183
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1184
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1185
“Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating ” 1186
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1187
Extreme Unequal Connective Dominating , 1188
is only and only 1189

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1190
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1191
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1192
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1193
SuperHyperClasses. 1194
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1195

|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 1196
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1197
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1198
There’s a new way to redefine as 1199
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 1200
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1201
The latter is straightforward. 1202
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1203
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1204
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1205
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1206
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme Super-

HyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Example (16.5)
Then 1207

|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 1208
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1209
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1210

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1215
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1216
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1217
1218
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1219

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

SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1220
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1221
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1222
a new way to redefine as 1223

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1227
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1228
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1229
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1230
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1231
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1232
Then 1233

|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 1234
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
1235
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|P i |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1236

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1240
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1241
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating could be applied. There are only two 1242
SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the 1243
representative in the 1244
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating taken from a connected Extreme 1245
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1246
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Example (16.11)
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1247
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1249
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1250
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1251
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1252
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1253
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1254
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1255
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1256

|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 1257
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
1258
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 1260

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1263
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1264
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 1265
SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the 1266
representative in the 1267
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1268
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1269
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1272
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1273
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1274
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1275
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1276
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1277
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1278
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Example (16.13)
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1279
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1280

{Ei }.
= z |Ei | .
{CEN T ER}.
= z |CEN T ER| .
Proof. Let 1281
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1282
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1284

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

of Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.15)
The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1287
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1288
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded 1289
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating proposes some longest SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1290
Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1291
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1292
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1293
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1294
of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the Extreme 1295
SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1296
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1297
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1298
For the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 1299
and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, some general results are 1300
introduced. 1301
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is 1302
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1303
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. Then 1304
Extreme SuperHyperU nequalConnectiveDominating =

{theSuperHyperU nequalConnectiveDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperU nequalConnectiveDominating
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperU nequalConnectiveDominating. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1305
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1306
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1307
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1308
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and 1309
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating coincide. 1310
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1312
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1313
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1315
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1316
Dominating. 1317
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1318
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is 1319
its SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and reversely. 1320
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, 1321
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1322
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1323
Dominating is its SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and reversely. 1324
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1325
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal 1326
Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1327
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1328
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1329
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1330
Corollary 6.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1331
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1332
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined 1333
if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1334
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1335
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1336
Dominating is well-defined. 1337
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1338
its Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1339
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is well-defined. 1340
Corollary 6.13. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1341
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1342
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is well-defined if 1343
and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating is well-defined. 1344
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1345
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1346
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1347
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1348
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1349
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1350
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1351
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1352
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1353
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1354
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1355
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1356
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1357
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1358
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1359
independent SuperHyperSet is 1360
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1361
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1362
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1363
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1364
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1365
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1366
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1367
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V 1368
is a maximal 1369
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1370
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1371
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1372
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1373
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1374
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1375
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1376
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1377
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1378
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1379
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1380
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1381
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1382
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1383
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1384
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1385
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1387
number of 1388
(i) : the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1389
(ii) : the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1390
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1391
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1392
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1393
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1394
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1395
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1396
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1398
(i) : the dual SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1399
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1400
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1401
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1402
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1403
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1404
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1405
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1408
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1409
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1410
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1411
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1415
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1416
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1417
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1420
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1421
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1422
is a 1423
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1427
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1428
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1429
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1432
number of 1433
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1437
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1438
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1439
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1440
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1441
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1442
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1444
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1445
(iv) : SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1449
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1450
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1451
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1452
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1453
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1454
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1455
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1456
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1460
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1462
Dominating. 1463
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1464
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1465
setting of dual 1466
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1470
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1471
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1472
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1474
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1476
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1477
dual 1478
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1482
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1483
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1484
Dominating. 1485
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1487
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1488
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1489
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1495
Dominating. 1496
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1497
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1498
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1499
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1500
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1501
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1502
such that 1503
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1504
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1505
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1506
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then 1507
(i) S is SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating set; 1508
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1509
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1510
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1511
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1512
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1513
connected. Then 1514
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1515
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1516
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1517
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1518
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1519
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1520
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1521
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1522
a dual SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1523
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1524
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1525
Dominating; 1526
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1527
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1528
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1529
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1530
dual SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1531
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1532
Then 1533
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1534
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1536
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1537
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1538
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1539
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1541
Then 1542
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1543
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1545
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1546
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1547
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1549
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1550
(ii) Γ = 1; 1551
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1552
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1553
Dominating. 1554
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1555
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1556
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1557
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1558
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1559
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1560
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1561
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1562
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1563
Connective Dominating; 1564
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1565
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1566
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1567
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1569
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1570
Connective Dominating; 1571
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1572
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 1573
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1574
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1576
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1577
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1578
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating for N SHF; 1579
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1580
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1581
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1582
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1583
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1584
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1585
SuperHyperSet. Then 1586
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1587
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating for N SHF; 1588
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1589

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1590
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal 1591
Connective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1592
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1593
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1594
SuperHyperSet. Then 1595
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1596
Connective Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1597
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1598

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1599
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1600
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1601
following statements hold; 1603
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1604
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then S is an 1605
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1606
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1607
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then S is a dual 1608
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1609
following statements hold; 1611
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1612
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then S is an 1613
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1614
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1615
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, then S is a dual 1616
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1617
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1618
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1619
hold; 1620
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1621
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1622
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c

+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1623
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1625
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1627
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1628
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1629
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1630
hold; 1631
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1632
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1634
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1636
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1638
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1639
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1641
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1642
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1643
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1645
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1647
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1650
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1652
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1653
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1654
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1656
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1658
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating; 1659
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1661
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperUnequal 1663
Connective Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1664
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1665
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1667
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1669
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1672
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperUnequal 1674
Connective Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1675
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1676
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1678
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1680
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1683
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1684
Recognition 1685
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1686
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1687
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1688
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1689
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1690
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1691
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1692
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1693
long-term Extreme function. 1694
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1695
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1696
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1697
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1698
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1699
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1700
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1701
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1702
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1703
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1704
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1705
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 1706
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1707
find either the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating or the Extreme 1708
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1709
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1710
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1711
SuperHyperModel 1712
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1713
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1714
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1715
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1716
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1717
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1718
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1719
the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1720
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1721
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1722
SuperHyperModel 1723
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1724
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1725
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1726
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1727
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1728
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1730
is the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. 1731
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1732
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1733
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1734
The SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1735
Dominating are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1736
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1737
recognitions? 1738
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1739
and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating?

Dominating 1740
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1741
compute them? 1742
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1743
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating? 1744
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal 1745
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on

Connective Dominating 1746
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, are there else? 1747
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1748
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1749
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1750
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1751
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1752
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1753
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1754
highlighted. 1755
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1756
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1757
SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1758
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1759
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1760
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, finds the convenient 1761
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1762
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1763
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1764
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1765
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1766
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1767
the SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective 1768
Dominating. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way 1769
through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the 1770
notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1771
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1772
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1773
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1774
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1775
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1776
formally called “ SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 1777
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 1778
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating
3. Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Connective Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1779
avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1780
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1781
Forms 1783
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1784
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1785
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1786
V 0 or E 0 is called 1787
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1788
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1789
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1790
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1791
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1792
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1793
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1794
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1795
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1796
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1797
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1798
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1799
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1801
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1802
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1803
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1804
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1805
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1806
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1807
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1809
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1810
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1811
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1812
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1813
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1815
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1816
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1817
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1818
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1820
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1825
Extreme coefficient; 1826
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1827
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1837
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1842
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1844
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1845
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1849
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 1850
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1851
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1852
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1853
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1857
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1858
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1862
Extreme coefficient. 1871
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1875
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1876
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1877
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1878
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1879
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1881
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme 1884
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1885
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1886
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1887
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1888
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1889


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1932
Then 1933
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1934
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1938
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1942
Then 1944
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1945
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1953
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1954
Then 1955
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1956
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1966
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1967
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1968
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1969
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 1974
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1975
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1976
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1977
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1978
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1979
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1987

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1990
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1991

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1997
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 2007
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2008
Proposition 12.14. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 2009
Then, 2010
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2011
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2012
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2013

∃!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 2018
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2019
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2021
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2022
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 2023
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2024
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2025
Forms 2027
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2028
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E , ∃Ej ∈ E , such that 2032
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2033
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2034
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2035
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2036
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2037
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2038
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2039
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2040
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2041
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2042
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2043
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2044
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2047
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2048
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2049
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2050
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2051
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2052
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2053
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2054
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2056
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2060
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2061
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2062
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2063
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2069
coefficient; 2070
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2071
coefficient; 2080
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2081
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2085
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2086
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2087
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2088
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2094
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2095
coefficient; 2104
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2105
coefficient. 2114
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2118
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2119
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2124
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2126
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2132


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2176
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

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

.
Proof. Let 2177
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2181
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2185
Then 2187

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

.
Proof. Let 2188
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2196
Then 2198
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2199

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2209
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2212
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 2217
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2218
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2219
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2221
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2230

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2233
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2234
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2235

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2238
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2239
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2240
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2251
Then, 2253

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

.
Proof. Let 2254
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2255

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2259
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2260
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2261
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2262
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2267
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2268
Forms 2270
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2271
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2275
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2276
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2277
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2278
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2279
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2280
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2281
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2282
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2283
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2284
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2285
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2286
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2289
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2291
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2295
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2296
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2298
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2302
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2303
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2304
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2305
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2311
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2313
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2323
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2324
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2328
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2330
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2331
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2332
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2335
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2336
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2337
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2338
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2339
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2348
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2361
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2367
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2375


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2419
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2420
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2424
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2428
Then 2430
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2431
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2439
Then 2441
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2442

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2452
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2455
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 2460
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2461
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2462
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2463
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2464
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2473

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2476
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2477

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2481
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2482
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2483
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2494
Then, 2496
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2497
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2498

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2502
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2503
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2504
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2505
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2510
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2511
Forms 2513
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2514
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2518
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2519
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2520
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2521
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2522
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2523
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2524
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2525
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2526
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2527
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2528
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2529
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2532
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2534
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2538
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2539
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2541
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2545
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2546
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2547
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2548
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2554
coefficient; 2555
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2556
coefficient; 2565
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2566
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2570
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2571
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2572
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2573
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2579
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2580
coefficient; 2589
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2590
coefficient. 2599
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2603
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2609
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2617


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2661
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2662
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2666
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2670
Then 2672
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2673
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2681
Then 2683
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2684
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2694
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2697
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2702
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2703
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2706
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2715

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2718
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2719
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2720

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2723
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2724
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2736
Then, 2738
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2739
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2740

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2744
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2745
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2746
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2747
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2752
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2753
Forms 2755
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2756
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2760
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2761
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2762
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2763
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2764
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2765
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2766
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2767
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2768
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2769
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2770
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2771
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2772
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2773
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2776
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2778
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2781
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2783
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2784
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2787
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2788
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2789
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2790
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2791
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2792
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2799
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2801
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2802
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2811
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2816
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2818
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2819
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2823
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2824
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2825
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2826
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2827
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2828
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2829
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2836
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2837
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2849
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2850
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2851
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2852
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2853
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2854
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2855
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2856
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2859
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2860
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2861
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2862
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2864


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2928
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2929
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2933
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2937
Then 2939
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2940
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2943
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2948
Then 2950
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2951
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2961
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2964
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2969
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2970
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2973
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2974
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2982
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2985
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2986

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2990
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2991
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3003
Then, 3005
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3006
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3007

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3011
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3012
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3013
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3014
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3020
17 Background 3021
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3022
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3023
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3024
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3025
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3026
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3027
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3028
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3029
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3030
with pages 32-55. 3031
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3032
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3033
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3034
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3035
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3036
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3037
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3038
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3039
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3040
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3041
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3042
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3043
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3044
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3045
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3046
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3047
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3048
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3049
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3050
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3051
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3052
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3053
SuperHyperNumbers. 3054
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3055
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3056
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3057
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3058
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3059
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3060
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3061
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3062
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3063
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3064
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3065
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3066
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3067
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3068
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3069
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3070
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3071
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3072
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3073
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3074
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3075
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3076
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3077
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3078
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3079
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3080
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3081
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3082
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3083
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3084
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3085
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3086
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3087
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3088
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3089
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3090
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3091
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3092
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3093
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3094
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3095
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3096
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3097
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3098
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3099
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3100
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3101
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3102
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3103
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3104
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3105
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3106
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3107
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3108
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3109
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3110
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3111
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3112
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3113
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3114
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3115
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3116
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3117
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3118
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3119
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3120
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3121
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3122
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3123
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3124
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3125
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3126
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3127
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3128
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3129
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3130
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [190] by Henry 3131
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3132
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3133
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [191] by Henry Garrett 3134
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3135
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3136
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [192] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3137
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3138
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3139
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [193] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3140
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3141
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [196] by 3142
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3143
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3144
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [197] by Henry 3145
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3146
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3147
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [200] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3148
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3149
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [203] by Henry 3150
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3151
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3152
in Ref. [204] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3153
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3154
Ref. [205] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3155
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3156
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [206] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3157
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3158
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [207] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3159
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3160
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [208] by Henry Garrett 3161
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3162
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [219] by Henry 3163
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3164
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3165
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [220] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–220], there 3166
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3167
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3168
at [221–344]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3169
readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [345, 346]. 3170
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3171
proposed as book in Ref. [345] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3172
Scholar and has more than 4728 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3173
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3174
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3175
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3176
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3177
proposed as book in Ref. [346] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3178
Scholar and has more than 5721 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3179
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3180
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3181
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3182
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3183
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3184
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3185
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3186
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3187
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–220] 3188
alongside scientific research books at [221–344]. Two popular scientific research books 3189
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic 3190
science is on [345, 346]. 3191
References 3192
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3193
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3194
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3195
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3196
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3197
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3198
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3199
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3200
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3201
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3202
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3203
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3204
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3205
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3206
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3207
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3208
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3209
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3210
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3211
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3212
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3213
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3214
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3215
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3216
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3217
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3218
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3219
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3220
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3221
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3222
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3223
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3224
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3225
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3226
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3227
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3228
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3229
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3230
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3231
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3232
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3233
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3234
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3235
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3236
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3237
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3238
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3239
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3240
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3241
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3242
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3243
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3244
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3245
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3246
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3247
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3248
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3249
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3250
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3251
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3252
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3253
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3254
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3255
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3256
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3257
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3258
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3259
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3260
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3261
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3262
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3263
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3264
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3265
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3266
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3267
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3268
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3269
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3270
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3271
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3272
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3274
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3278
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3279
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3280
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3281
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3282
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3283
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3284
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3285
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3286
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3287
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3288
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3289
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3290
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3291
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3292
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3293
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3294
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3295
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3296
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3297
SuperHyperGraph By Strict Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3299
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8076416). 3300
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Strict 3301
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3302
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8076399). 3303
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On 3305
Super Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8072171). 3306
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse 3307
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3308
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3311
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8067384). 3312
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Equal 3313
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3314
SuperHyperGraph By Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3317
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8061927). 3318
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Dimension 3319
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3320
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8062016). 3321
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3323
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse 3325
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3329
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Equal 3331
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super 3335
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346). 3336
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 3337
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3341
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3343
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3347
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3348
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3349
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3350
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3351
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3353
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3354
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3355
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3356
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3357
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3359
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3361
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3362
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3365
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3366
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3367
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3369
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3371
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3372
51. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3373
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3374
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3377
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3378
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3379
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3380
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3381
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3382
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3383
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3385
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3386
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3388
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3391
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3394
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3397
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3398
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3400
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3403
61. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3405
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3406
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3409
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3412
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3415
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3416
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3418
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3421
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3422
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3424
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3427
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3430
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3433
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3436
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3439
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3440
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3442
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3443
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3445
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3446
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3448
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3451
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3454
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3455
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3457
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3460
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3461
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3462
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3464
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3465
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3467
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3468
82. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3469
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3470
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3473
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3476
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3477
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3479
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3480
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3482
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3485
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3488
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3491
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3494
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3497
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3500
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3503
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3506
95. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3508
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3509
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3510
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3512
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3515
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3516
98. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3517
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3519
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3521
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3524
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3527
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3528
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3530
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3531
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3533
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3534
104. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3535
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3536
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3537
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3539
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3542
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3545
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3546
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3548
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3551
110. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3553
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3555
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3557
112. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3559
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3560
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3563
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3565
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3566
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3569
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3571
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3573
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3575
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3577
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3578
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3581
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3582
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3587
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3589
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3591
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3593
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3594
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3596
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3598
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3600
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3602
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3603
127. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3604
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3605
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3606
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3608
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3609
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3610
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3611
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3614
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3616
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3617
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3620
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3622
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3623
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3626
135. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3628
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3630
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3632
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3633
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3634
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3635
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3638
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3639
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3640
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3641
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3644
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3645
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3646
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3647
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3650
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3651
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3652
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3653
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3656
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3657
145. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3658
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3659
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3662
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3663
147. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3664
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3665
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3667
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3668
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3671
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3672
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3673
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3674
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3677
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3678
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3679
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3680
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3683
154. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3685
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3686
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3689
156. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3691
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3692
157. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3694
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3695
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3698
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3701
160. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3703
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3704
161. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3706
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3707
162. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3709
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3710
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3711
163. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3712
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3713
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3714
164. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3715
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3716
165. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3718
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3719
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3720
166. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3721
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3722
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3723
167. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3724
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3725
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3726
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3727
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3730
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3731
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3734
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3735
170. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3736
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3738
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3739
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3742
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3743
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3746
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3747
173. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3748
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3749
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3750
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3751
174. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3752
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3753
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3754
175. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3755
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3756
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3757
176. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3758
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3759
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3760
177. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3761
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3762
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3763
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3764
178. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3765
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3766
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3767
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3768
179. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3769
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3770
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3771
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3772
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3773
180. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3774
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3775
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3776
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3777
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3778
181. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3779
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3780
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3781
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3782
182. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3783
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3784
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3785
183. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3786
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3787
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3789
184. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3790
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3791
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3792
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3793
185. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3794
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3795
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3796
186. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3797
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3798
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3799
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3800
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3801
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3802
187. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3803
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3804
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3805
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3806
188. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3807
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3808
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3809
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3810
189. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3811
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3812
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3813
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3814
190. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3815
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3816
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3817
191. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3818
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3819
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3820
192. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3822
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3823
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3824
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3825
193. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3826
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3827
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3828
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3829
194. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3830
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3831
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3832
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3833
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3835
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3836
196. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3837
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3838
197. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3840
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3841
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3842
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3847
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3851
200. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3852
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3853
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3854
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3855
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3858
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3860
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3861
203. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3862
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3863
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3866
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3867
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3869
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3870
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3873
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3874
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3876
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3877
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3880
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3881
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3883
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3884
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3886
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3891
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3892
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3896
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3897
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3900
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3903
215. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3904
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3905
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3906
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3907
216. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3908
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3909
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3910
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3911
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3914
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3915
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3918
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3919
219. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3920
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3921
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3922
220. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3923
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3924
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3925
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3926
221. Henry Garrett, “Strict Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3927
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8076449). 3928
222. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3929
223. Henry Garrett, “Equal Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3931
224. Henry Garrett, “Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3933
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8062076). 3934
225. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3935
226. Henry Garrett, “Equal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3937
227. Henry Garrett, “Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3939
228. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3941
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 3942
229. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3943
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 3944
230. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3945
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 3946
231. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3947
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 3948
232. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3949
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 3950
233. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3951
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 3952
234. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3953
235. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3955
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 3956
236. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3957
237. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3959
238. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3961
239. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3963
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 3964
240. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3965
241. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3967
242. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3969
243. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3971
244. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3973
245. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3975
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3976
246. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3977
247. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3979
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3980
248. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3981
249. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3983
250. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3985
251. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3987
252. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3989
253. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3991
254. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3993
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3994
255. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3995
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3996
256. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3997
257. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3999
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4000
258. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4001
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4002
259. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4003
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4004
260. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4005
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4006
261. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4007
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4008
262. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4009
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4010
263. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4011
264. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4013
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4014
265. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4015
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4016
266. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4017
267. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4019
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4020
268. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4021
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4022
269. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4023
270. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4025
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4026
271. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4027
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4028
272. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4029
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4030
273. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4031
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4032
274. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4033
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4034
275. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4035
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4036
276. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4037
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4038
277. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4039
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4040
278. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4041
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4042
279. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4043
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4044
280. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4045
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4046
281. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4047
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4048
282. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4049
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4050
283. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4051
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4052
284. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4053
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4054
285. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4055
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4056
286. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4057
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4058
287. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4059
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4060
288. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4061
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4062
289. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4063
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4064
290. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4065
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4066
291. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4067
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4068
292. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4069
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4070
293. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4071
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4072
294. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4073
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4074
295. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4075
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4076
296. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4077
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4078
297. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4079
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4080
298. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4081
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4082
299. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4083
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4084
300. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4085
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4086
301. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4087
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4088
302. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4089
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4090
303. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4091
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4092
304. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4093
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4094
305. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4095
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4096
306. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4097
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4098
307. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4099
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4100
308. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4101
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4102
309. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4103
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4104
310. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4105
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4106
311. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4107
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4108
312. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4109
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4110
313. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4111
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4112
314. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4113
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4114
315. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4115
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4116
316. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4117
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4118
317. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4119
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4120
318. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4121
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4122
319. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4123
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4124
320. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4125
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4126
321. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4127
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4128
322. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4129
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4130
323. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4131
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4132
324. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4133
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4134
325. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4135
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4136
326. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4137
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4138
327. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4139
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4140
328. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4141
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4142
329. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4143
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4144
330. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4145
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4146
331. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4147
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4148
332. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4149
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4150
333. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4151
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4152
334. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4153
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4154
335. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4155
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4156
336. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4157
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4158
337. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4159
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4160
338. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4161
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4162
339. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4163
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4164
340. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4165
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4166
341. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4167
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4168
342. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4169
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4170
343. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4171
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4172
344. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4173
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4174
345. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4175
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4176
346. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4177
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4178
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

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

Preprint · June 2023

509 PUBLICATIONS 22,646 CITATIONS

On Fuzzy Logic View project

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Unequal 2

Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 62