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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371869323
New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Strict Dimension Dominating In

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8084420
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
514 PUBLICATIONS 23,555 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
Neutrosophic Graphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 27 June 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Strict 2
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 10
S is a Strict Dimension Dominating pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 11
V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either V 0 or E 0 is called 12
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 13
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating criteria holds 14
∀Ea ∈ EN SHG , ∃Eb ∈ E 0 : ∃Vc ∈ VN SHG , Vc ∈ Ea , Eb

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

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

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

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension 23
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 24
v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension 25
Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating). Assume a Neutrosophic 26
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic 27
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme 28
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension 29
Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 32
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 33
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 34
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 35
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 36
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 37
re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, 38
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 39
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 40
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 41
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 42
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 43
Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 44
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 45
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 47
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 48
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 49
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 50
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 51
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 52
and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 53
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 54
e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, 55
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict 56
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 57
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 58
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 59
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 60
Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an 63
Extreme V-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 64
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 67
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 68
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 69
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 70
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperStrict Dimension 71
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 72
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 74
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 75
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 76
Dominating; an Extreme V-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 79
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 80
and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 82
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 83
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme 84
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 85
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 87
and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic 88
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic 89
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 92
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 93
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 94
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 95
Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In 98
this scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 99
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 100
Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes 101
further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 102
on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 103
whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 104
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 105
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 106
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 107
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 108
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 109
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 110
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 111
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 112
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 113
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 114
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 115
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 116
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 117
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 118
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 119
δ−SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 120
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 121
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 122
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 123
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 124
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating 125
is a maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 126
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 127
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 128
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 129
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 130
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 131
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 132
version of a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating . Since there’s more ways to get 133
type-results to make a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating more understandable. For the 134
sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, there’s a need to “redefine” 135
the notion of a “SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 136
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 137
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 138
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 139
Dominating if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 140
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 141
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number 142
of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of 143
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 144
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 145
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 146
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 147
based on a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have 148
the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need 149
to have all SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating until the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, 150
then it’s officially called a “SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” but otherwise, it isn’t a 151
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating . There are some instances about the clarifications for 152
the main definition titled a “SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating ”. These two examples get 153
more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of 154
the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating . For the sake of 155
having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, there’s a need to “redefine” the 156
notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” and a “Neutrosophic 157
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 158
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s 159
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic 160
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 161
Table holds. And a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating are redefined to a “Neutrosophic 162
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 163
“Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 164
Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating 165
more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 166
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 167
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 168
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic 169
SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating”, “Neutrosophic 170
SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic 171
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 172
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” 173
where it’s the strongest [the maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperStrict 174
Dimension Dominating amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 175
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating .] SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating . A graph is a 176
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 177
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 178
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 179
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperStrict 180
Dimension Dominating if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 181
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 182
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 183
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 184
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 185
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 186
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 187
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 188
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 189
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 190
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 191
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 192
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 193
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 194
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 195
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 196
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In 197
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 198
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 199
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 200
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 201
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 202
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 203
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 204
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 205
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 206
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 207
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 208
cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStrict Dimension 209
Dominating, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 210
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperStrict Dimension 211
Dominating or the strongest SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in those Neutrosophic 212
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, called 213
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, and the strongest SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, 214
called Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, some general results are 215
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only 216
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 217
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. There isn’t 218
any formation of any SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating but literarily, it’s the deformation 219
of any SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A 220
basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating theory, 221
SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 222
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, 223
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 224
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 225
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 226
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 227
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 228
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 229
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 230
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 231
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 232
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 233
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 234
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 235
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 236
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 237
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 238
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 239
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 240
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 241
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 242
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 243
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 244
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 245
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 246
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 247
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 248
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 249
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 250
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 251
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 252
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 253
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 254
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 255
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 256
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 257
formally called “ SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 258
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 259
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 260
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 261
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 262
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 263
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 264
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 265
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 266
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 267
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 268
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 269
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 270
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 271
either the optimal SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating or the Extreme SuperHyperStrict 272
Dimension Dominating in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 273
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s 274
have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 275
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. There 276
isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating but literarily, it’s the 277
deformation of any SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it 278
doesn’t form. 279
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 280
find the “ amount of SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” of either individual of cells or the 281
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 282
of SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 283
group of cells? 284
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 285
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 286
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 287
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ SuperHyperStrict 288
Dimension Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” on 289
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken 290
more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this 291
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 292
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 293
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 294
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 295
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 296
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 297
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 298
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 299
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 300
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 301
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating 302
and Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, are figured out in sections “ 303
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating”. In 304
the sense of tackling on getting results and in Strict Dimension Dominating to make sense about 305
continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme 306
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 307
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 308
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back 309
to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 310
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 311
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 312
Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 313
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 314
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 315
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 316
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating”, 317
“Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 318
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 319
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 320
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 321
presented in section, “ SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating”. The keyword of this research 322
debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 323
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 324
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 325
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 326
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 327
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 328
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 329
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 330
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 331
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 332
Research On the Redeemed Ways 333
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 334
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 335
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.5,p.2), 336
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 337
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 338
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 339
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [1],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 340
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 341
(Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 342
to Ref. [224]. 343
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 344
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 345
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.1,p.1). 346
Let X be a Strict Dimension Dominating of points (objects) with generic elements in X

denoted by x; then the Neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 347
+
]− 0, 1 [. 348
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2). 349
Let X be a Strict Dimension Dominating of points (objects) with generic elements in X

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

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

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [1],Definition 350
2.5,p.2). 351
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 352
pair S = (V, E), where 353
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 354
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 355
1, 2, . . . , n); 356
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 357
V; 358
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 359
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 360
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 361
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 362
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 363
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 364
(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 . 365
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 366
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 367
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 368
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 369
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 370
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 371
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 372
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 373
the ii0 th element of the Strict Dimension Dominating of Neutrosophic 374
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 375
and E are crisp sets. 376
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 377
(Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3). 378
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 379
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 380
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 381
characterized as follow-up items. 382
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 383
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 384
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 385
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 386
HyperEdge; 387
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 388
SuperEdge; 389
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 390
SuperHyperEdge. 391
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 392
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 393
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3). 394
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 395
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 396
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 397
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 398
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 399
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 400
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)). 401
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 402
pair S = (V, E), where 403
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 404
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 405
1, 2, . . . , n); 406
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 407
V; 408
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 409
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 410
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 411
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 412
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 413
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 414
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 415
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 416
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 417
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 418
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 419
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 420
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 421
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 422
the ii0 th element of the Strict Dimension Dominating of Neutrosophic 423
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 424
and E are crisp sets. 425
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 426
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 428
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 429
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 430
characterized as follow-up items. 431
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 432
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 433
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 434
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 435
HyperEdge; 436
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 437
SuperEdge; 438
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 439
SuperHyperEdge. 440
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 441
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 442
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 443
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 444
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 445
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 446
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 447
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 448
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 449
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 450
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 451
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 452
given SuperHyperEdges; 453
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 454
SuperHyperEdges; 455
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 456
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 457
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 458
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 459
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 460
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 461
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 462
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 463
common SuperVertex. 464
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 465
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 466
of following conditions hold: 467
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 468
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 469
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 470
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 471
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 476
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 477
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 478
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. 479
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 480
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 481
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 482
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 483
SuperHyperPath . 484
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 485
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 487
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 488
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 489
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 490
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 491
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 492
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 493
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 494
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 495
(ix) Neutrosophic t-Connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 496
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 497
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 498
(x) Neutrosophic i-Connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 499
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 500
(xi) Neutrosophic f-Connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 502
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 503
(xii) Neutrosophic Connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 505
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 506
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 507
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 508
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict 509
Dimension Dominating). 510
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 512
either V 0 or E 0 is called 513
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if the following expression 514
is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating criteria holds 515

(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if the following 516
expression is called Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating 517
criteria holds 518

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 519
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if the following expression 520
is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating criteria holds 521

(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if the following 522
expression is called Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating 523
criteria holds 524

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 525
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 526
e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension 527
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic 528
rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 529
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating). 530
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 532
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 533
e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension 534
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic 535
rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 536
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 537
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 538
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 539
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 540
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 541
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 542
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict 543
Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, and 544
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 545
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 546
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 547
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 548
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 549
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 550
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if 551
it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 552
re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension 553
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for 554
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 555
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 556
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 557
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 558
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded 560
to its Extreme coefficient; 561
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating 562
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension 563
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 566
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 567
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 568
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 569
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 570
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 571
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to 572
its Neutrosophic coefficient; 573
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 574
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 577
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 578
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 579
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 580
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 582
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 583
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 586
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 587
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 588
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 589
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 590
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 591
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 592
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 593
re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension 594
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for 595
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 596
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 598
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 599
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded 601
to its Extreme coefficient; 602
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating 603
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension 604
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 607
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 608
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 609
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 610
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 611
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 612
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to 613
its Neutrosophic coefficient. 614
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating). 615
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 616
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
(i) an δ−SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic 617
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating such that either of the following expressions hold 618
for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 619
|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 620
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 621
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind 622
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating such that either of the following 623
Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 624
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 625
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 626
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 627
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 628
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, there’s a 629
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 630
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 631
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 632
assign to the values. 633
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 634
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 635
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 636
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 637
understandable. 638
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 639
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 640
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, 641
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 642
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 643
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 644
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 645
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 646
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict 647
. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic

Dimension Dominating 648
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 649

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, there’s a 650
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 651
Dominating”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the 652
labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 653
position of labels to assign to the values. 654
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. It’s redefined a 655
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 656
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The

Strict Dimension Dominating 657
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 658
Forms 659
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 660
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 661
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 662
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 663
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 664
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 665
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is called 667
Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 668
s-independent criteria 669
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. 670
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 671
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 672
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Any k-function Strict Dimension Dominating 674
like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Strict Dimension 675
Dominating like E is called Extreme Variable. 676
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 677
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 678
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 680
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 681
Expectation criteria 682
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 683
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. an Extreme number is called 685
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 686
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). 687
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let m and n propose special Strict 688
Dimension Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 689
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 690
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 691
independently with probability Strict Dimension Dominating p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] and 692
H := G[S]. 693
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: 694
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ = 3 = 64 m n .
p3 (4n/m)
695
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 696
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 697
points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines √ in the plane 698
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 699
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 700
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points on the 701
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 702
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 703
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 704
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 705
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 706
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 708
points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 709
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 710
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 711
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 712
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 713

P n−1
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0 ni = n 714
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
715
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 716
between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at 717
least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 718
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 719
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 720
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 721
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 722
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 723
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 724
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 725
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 726
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let X be a 727
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 728
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. 729
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 730
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be a 731
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Strict Dimension Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 732
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 733
Proof. 734
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 735
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. A special 736
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 737
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is 739
up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 740
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 741
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 742
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 743
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 744
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 745
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 746
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 747
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: 748
k+1
n
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 749
k+1 −p)(k+1)choose2 −pk/2k+1

n e ne
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 750
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 751
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 752
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 753
number at most k. 754
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 755
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 757
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 758
Variance criteria 759
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let X be an 761
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 762
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let X be an Extreme Variable and let 764
t be a positive real number. Then 765
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ 2
= .
t t2
766
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be an 768
Extreme Variable in a probability Strict Dimension Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and 769
V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 770
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 772
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 773
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 774
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, 776
set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 777
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 778
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. As in the proof of related Theorem, 780
the result is straightforward. 781
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 783
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 784
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 785
or 786
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 787
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 789
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 790
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 792
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 793
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 794
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 795
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 796
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 797
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let F be a fixed Extreme 799
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 800
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 801
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let F be a 803
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 804
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 805
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 806
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 808
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.3)
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 809
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 810
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 811
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 812
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 813
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 814
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 815
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 816
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 817
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 818
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 819
C(N SHG)Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Strict Dimension Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Strict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
820
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 823
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 824
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 825
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 826
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 827
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperStrict 828

Dimension Dominating . 829

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
830
straightforward. 833

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
834



{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
838


{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
842

{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
846


{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
850

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



854

{E3i+1 , E23 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 , V11 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
858

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

862

{EN SHG − {E1 , E6 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
866

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

870

{EN SHG − {E6 , E9 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
874

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .



878

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
882


{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 }.
= z 2−a .
886

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
890




{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
894

{E3i+1 }3i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2i+1 }5i=0 .
= z 2−a .
898


{EN SHG − {E1 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , {U2 , V2 , W2 }}.
= z 3−a .
902

{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .



906

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .
910
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 911
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension 912
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 913
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 914
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount 915
of them. 916
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 917
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 918
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 919
any given Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to 920
some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 921
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 922
an Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 923
of them but not all of them. 924
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating is 925
at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 926
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 927
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 928
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Strict Dimension 929
Dominating in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with 930
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 931
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating. 932
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Strict Dimension Dominating has, the least Extreme
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme
cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Strict Dimension Dominating with the least Extreme cardinality, 933
the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 934
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 935
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 936
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictDimensionDominating
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictDimensionDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Strict Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the 937
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Strict Dimension Dominating is the 938
cardinality of 939
= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictDimensionDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Strict Dimension
Dominating since neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of
SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Extreme number of

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

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

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating.
It’s the contradiction to that fact on the generality. There are some counterexamples to
deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled path and
cycle as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction star as the examples-classes,
are well-known classes in that setting and they could be considered as the
examples-classes and counterexamples-classes for the tight bound of
Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at 940
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 941
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 942
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 943
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 944
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 945
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 946
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 947
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating decorates the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this
Extreme style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the
maximum Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are

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

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
Is an Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 948
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 949
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 950
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 951
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

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

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

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

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating. Let
E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 952
Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
953
Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating =

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Strict
Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating 954
is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 955
Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme 956
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 957
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 958
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating in some cases but the 959
maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 960
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 961
contained in an Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating. 962
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 963
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 964
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 965
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 966
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 967
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 968
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 969
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 970
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 971
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 972
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating 973
where the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 974
literarily, an Extreme embedded R-Strict Dimension Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of 975
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 976
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 977
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 978
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 979
Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Extreme 980
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded 981
Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating. The interior types of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 982
are deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by 983
the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and 984
more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any 985
distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating. 986
Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Extreme 987
SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior Extreme 988
SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme Strict 989
Dimension Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve 990
more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant 991
than the title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. 992
Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one 993
SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case 994
implying the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating. The Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating 995
with the exclusion of the exclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme 996
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating with the 997
inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an 998
Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious 999
Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme 1000
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct 1001
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension 1002
Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In 1003
other words, there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 1004
only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension 1005
Dominating, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1006
The main definition of the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating has two titles. an 1007
Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 1008
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1009
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating with that quasi-maximum 1010
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1011
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1012
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1013
quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominatings for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1014
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating ends 1015
up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating, 1016
again and more in the operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension 1017
Dominatings acted on the all possible used formations of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph to 1018
achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number is 1019
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Strict Dimension 1020
Dominatings. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme Strict Dimension Dominating 1021
be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet and an Extreme Strict Dimension 1022
. Then
Dominating 1023
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Strict Dimension Dominating ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating is 1024
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1025
GExtreme Strict Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1026
technical definition for the Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating. 1027
GExtreme Strict Dimension Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme Strict 1028
Dimension Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1029

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1030

= max zExtreme Number
[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1031


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1032
GExtreme Strict Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

1033

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

1034


1035


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1036
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1037
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1038
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1039
Quasi-Strict Dimension Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1040
Quasi-Strict Dimension Dominating” since “Extreme Quasi-Strict Dimension Dominating” happens 1041
“Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1042
and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1043
Strict Dimension Dominating” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1044
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1045
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1046
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Strict Dimension Dominating”, and “Extreme Strict 1047
” are up.
Thus, let 1049
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1050
GExtreme Strict Dimension Dominating be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1051
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating and the new terms are 1052
up. 1053
GExtreme Strict Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1054

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1055

∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1056

And with go back to initial structure, 1057
GExtreme Strict Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

1058

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

1059


1060


Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1061
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating if for 1062
any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior 1063
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1064
Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1065
them. 1066
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1067
are coming up. 1068
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating. The
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1069
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1070
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1071
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1072
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1073
Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the

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

. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Dominating
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1074
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1075
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1076
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Strict 1077
Dimension Dominating and it’s an Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1078
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for
some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating. There isn’t only less than
two Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Strict
Dimension Dominating, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1079
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1080
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1081
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1082
“Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating” 1083
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1084
Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating, 1085
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1086
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower
sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating is the cardinality
of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1087
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Strict Dimension 1088
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1089
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 1090
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any 1091
amount of them. 1092
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1093
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1094
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1095
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1096
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1097
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating with the least 1098
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1099
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1100
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1101
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1102
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Strict Dimension 1103
Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1104
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1106
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1107
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1108
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme R-Strict Dimension 1109
Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that there’s an 1110
Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there 1111
are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the 1112
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1113
titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the 1114
Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only 1115
one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1116
VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious 1117
Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1118
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Strict Dimension Dominating, VESHE , is an Extreme 1119
SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any 1120
kind of Extreme pairs are titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme 1121
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1122
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality 1123
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 1124
Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, 1125
in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Strict 1126
Dimension Dominating only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior 1127
Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s 1128
any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1129
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1130
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1131
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1132
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Strict Dimension Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1133
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1134
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1135
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating. The Extreme SuperHyperSet 1136
of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1137
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−StrictDimensionDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating. The 1138
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1139
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1140
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1141
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1143
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1144
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1145
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1146
non-obvious Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1147
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating is an Extreme 1148
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1149
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1150
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 1151
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1152
Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1153
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1154
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Strict Dimension 1155
. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Dominating 1156
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1157
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1158
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1159
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1160
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating 1161
and it’s an Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1162
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1164
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1165
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1166
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1167
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating , 1168
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Strict Dimension 1169
, not:
Dominating 1170
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1171
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 1172
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1173
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1174
“Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating ” 1175
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1176
Extreme Strict Dimension Dominating , 1177
is only and only 1178
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1179
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1180
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1181
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1182
SuperHyperClasses. 1183
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1184

|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 1185
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme Super-

HyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.5)
1186
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). 1187
There’s a new way to redefine as 1188
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 1189
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1190
The latter is straightforward. 1191
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1192
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1193
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1194
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1195
Then 1196

|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 1197
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1198
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1199

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1204
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1205
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1206
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1207

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

SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.7)
Proof. Let 1208
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1209
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1210
a new way to redefine as 1211

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1215
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1216
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1217
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1218
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1219
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1220
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Then 1221

{EN SHG − {EPi , EPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
{VN SHG − {VPi , VPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
Proof. Let 1222
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
1223
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1224

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1228
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1229
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1230
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1231
the 1232
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating taken from a connected Extreme 1233
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1234
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1235
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1237
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1238
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1239
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1240
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1241
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1242
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1243
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1244

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

of Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.11)
Proof. Let 1245
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
1246
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 1248

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1251
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1252
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1253
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1254
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.13)
the 1255
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1256
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1257
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1260
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1261
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1262
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1263
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1264
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1265
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1266
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1267
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1268

|E |
{E3i+2 }i=0ESHP ∪ E ∗ .
| min |E | |Ei |
{E3i+2 } ESHP ∪E ∗
=z i=0 .
|E |
EXT ERN AL
{V2i+2 }i=0ESHP ∪ V ∗ .
| min |E | |Vi |
{V EXT ERN AL } ESHP ∪V ∗
=z 2i+2 i=0 .
Proof. Let 1269
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1270
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1272

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1275
Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperStrict 1276
Dimension Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1277
Dominating proposes some longest SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating excerpt from some 1278
representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1279
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1280
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1281
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 1282
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 1283
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1284
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1285
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1286
For the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, and 1287
the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, some general results are introduced. 1288
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is 1289
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1290
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. Then 1291
Extreme SuperHyperStrictDimensionDominating =
{theSuperHyperStrictDimensionDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperStrictDimensionDominating
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperStrictDimensionDominating. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1292
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1293
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1294
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1295
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and 1296
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating coincide. 1297
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1299
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1300
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1302
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1303
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1304
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is 1305
its SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1306
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, 1307
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1308
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating 1309
is its SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1310
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1311
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1312
Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1313
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1314
Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStrict 1315
Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1316
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1318
Then its Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1319
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1320
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1321
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1322
Dominating is well-defined. 1323
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1324
its Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1325
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1326
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 1328
Then its Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1329
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1330
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1331
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1332
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1333
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1334
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1335
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1336
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1337
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1338
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1339
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1340
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1341
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1342
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1343
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1344
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1345
independent SuperHyperSet is 1346
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1347
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1348
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1349
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1350
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1351
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1352
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1353
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1354
a maximal 1355
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1356
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1357
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1358
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1359
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1360
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1361
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1362
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1363
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1364
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1365
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1366
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1367
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1368
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1369
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1370
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1371
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1373
number of 1374
(i) : the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1375
(ii) : the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1376
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1377
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1378
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1379
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1380
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1381
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1382
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1384
(i) : the dual SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1385
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1386
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1387
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1388
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1389
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1390
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1391
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1394
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1395
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1396
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1397
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1401
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1402
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1403
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1406
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1407
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1408
is a 1409
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1413
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1414
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1415
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1418
number of 1419
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1423
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1424
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1425
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1426
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1427
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1428
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1430
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1431
(iv) : SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1435
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1436
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1437
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1438
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1439
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1440
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1441
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1442
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1446
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1448
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1449
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1450
setting of dual 1451
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1455
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1456
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1457
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1459
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1461
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1462
dual 1463
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1467
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1468
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1469
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1471
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1472
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1473
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1479
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1480
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1481
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1482
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1483
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1484
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1485
such that 1486
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1487
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1488
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1489
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then 1490
(i) S is SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating set; 1491
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1492
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1493
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1494
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1495
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1496
connected. Then 1497
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1498
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1499
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1500
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1501
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1502
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1503
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1504
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1505
a dual SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1506
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1507
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1508
Dominating; 1509
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1510
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1511
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1512
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1513
dual SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1514
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. Then 1515
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1516
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1518
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1519
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1520
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1521
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. Then 1523
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1524
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1526
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1527
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1528
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1530
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1531
(ii) Γ = 1; 1532
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1533
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1534
Dominating. 1535
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1536
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1537
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1538
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1539
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1540
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1541
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1542
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1543
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict 1544
Dimension Dominating; 1545
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1546
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1547
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1548
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1550
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict 1551
Dimension Dominating; 1552
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1553

bnc ; 1554
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1555
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1557
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1558
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1559
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1560
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1561
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1562
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperStrict 1563
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1564
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1565
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1566
SuperHyperSet. Then 1567
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1568
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1569
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1570

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1571
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1572
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1573
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1574
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1575
SuperHyperSet. Then 1576
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict 1577
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1578
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1579

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1580
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only dual maximal SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1581
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1582
following statements hold; 1584
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1585
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1586
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1587
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1588
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1589
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1590
following statements hold; 1592
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1593
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1594
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1595
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1596
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1597
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1598
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1599
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1600
hold; 1601
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1602
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1603
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1604
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1606
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1608
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1609
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1610
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1611
hold; 1612
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1613
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1615
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1617
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1619
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1620
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1622
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1623
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1624
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1626
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1628
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1631
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1633
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1634
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1635
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1637
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1639
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1640
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1642
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperStrict 1644
Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1645
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1646
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1648
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1650
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1653
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperStrict 1655
Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1656
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1657
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1659
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1661
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1664
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1665
Recognition 1666
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1667
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1668
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1669
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1670
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1671
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1672
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1673
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1674
long-term Extreme function. 1675
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1676
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1677
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1678
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1679
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1680
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1681
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1682
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1683
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1684
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1685
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1686
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 1687
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1688
find either the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating or the Extreme 1689
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1690
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1691
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1692
SuperHyperModel 1693
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1694
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1695
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1696
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1697
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1698
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1699
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1700
the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1701
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1702
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1703
SuperHyperModel 1704
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1705
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1706
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperStrict Dimension 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 1707
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1708
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1709
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1711
is the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1712
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1713
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1714
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1715
The SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1716
Dominating are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1717
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1718
recognitions? 1719
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1720
and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating?

Dominating 1721
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1722
compute them? 1723
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1724
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating? 1725
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict 1726
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on

SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, are there else? 1728
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1729
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1730
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1731
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1732
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1733
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1734
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1735
highlighted. 1736
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1737
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1738
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1739
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1740
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1741
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, finds the convenient 1742
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1743
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1744
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1745
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1746
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1747
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1748
the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1749
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. 1750
In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1751
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1752
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1753
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1754
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1755
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1756
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1757
formally called “ SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 1758
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 1759
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating
3. Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1760
avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1761
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1762
Forms 1764
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1765
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1766
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1767
V 0 or E 0 is called 1768
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E such 1769
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1770
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1771
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1772
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1773
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1774
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1775
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1776
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1777
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1778
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1779
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1780
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1782
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1783
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1784
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1785
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1786
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1787
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1788
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1790
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1791
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1792
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1793
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1794
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 1795
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1796
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1797
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1798
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1799
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1801
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1806
Extreme coefficient; 1807
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1808
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1818
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1825
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1826
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 1830
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1832
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1833
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1834
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1843
Extreme coefficient. 1852
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1856
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1857
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1858
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1859
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1860
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1862
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 1865
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1866
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1867
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1868
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1869
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1870


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). 1913
Then 1914
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 1915
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 1919
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1923
Then 1925
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 1926
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1934
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1935
Then 1936
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 1937
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1947
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1948
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1949
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 1950
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 1955
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1956
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1957
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1958
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1959
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1960
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1968

= {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 1971
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1972

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1978
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), 1988
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1989
Proposition 12.14. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1990
Then, 1991
∗ ∗
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 1992
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 1993
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1994

∃!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 1999
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2000
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2002
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2003
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2005
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2006
Forms 2008
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2009
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2013
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2014
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2015
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2016
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2017
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2018
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2019
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2020
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2021
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2022
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2023
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2024
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2025
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2028
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2029
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2030
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2031
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2032
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2033
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2034
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2035
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2037
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2041
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2042
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2043
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2044
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2050
coefficient; 2051
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2052
coefficient; 2061
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2062
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2066
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2067
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2068
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2069
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2073
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2075
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2076
coefficient; 2085
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2086
coefficient. 2095
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2099
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2100
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2105
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. 2107
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2113


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 2157
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 2158
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2162
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2166
Then 2168

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

.
Proof. Let 2169
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2177
Then 2179
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 2180

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2190
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 2193
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 2198
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2199
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2200
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2202
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2211

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 2214
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2215
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2216

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2219
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2220
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2221
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. 2232
Then, 2234

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

.
Proof. Let 2235
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2236

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2240
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2241
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2242
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2243
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2248
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2249
Forms 2251
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2252
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2256
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2257
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2258
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2259
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2260
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2261
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2262
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2263
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2264
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2265
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2266
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2267
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2270
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2272
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2276
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2277
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2279
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2283
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2284
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2285
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2286
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2292
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2294
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2304
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2305
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2311
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2312
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2313
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2316
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2318
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2319
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2320
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2329
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2342
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2348
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. 2356


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 2400
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 2401
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2405
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2409
Then 2411
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 2412
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2420
Then 2422
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2423

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2433
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 2436
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 2441
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2442
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2443
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2444
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2445
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2454

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 2457
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2458

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2462
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2463
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2464
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. 2475
Then, 2477
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2478
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2479

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2483
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2484
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2485
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2486
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2491
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2492
Forms 2494
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2495
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2499
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2500
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2501
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2502
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2503
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2504
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2505
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2506
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2507
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2508
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2509
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2510
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2513
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2515
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2519
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2520
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2522
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2526
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2527
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2528
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2529
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2535
coefficient; 2536
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2537
coefficient; 2546
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2547
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2551
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2552
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2553
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2554
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2558
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2560
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2561
coefficient; 2570
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2571
coefficient. 2580
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2584
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2590
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. 2598


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 2642
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 2643
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2647
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2651
Then 2653
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 2654
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. 2662
Then 2664
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 2665
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2675
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 2678
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2683
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2684
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2687
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2696

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 2699
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2700
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2701

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2704
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2705
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. 2717
Then, 2719
∗
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 2720
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2721

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2725
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2726
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2727
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2728
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2733
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2734
Forms 2736
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2737
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2741
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2742
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2743
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2744
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2745
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2746
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2747
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2748
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2749
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2750
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2751
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2752
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2753
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2754
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2757
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2759
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2760
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2761
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2762
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2764
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2765
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2768
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2769
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2770
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2771
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2772
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2773
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2775
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2780
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2782
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2783
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2792
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 2796
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2797
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2799
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2800
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2804
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2805
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2806
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2807
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2808
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2809
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2810
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2817
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2818
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2830
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2831
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2832
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2833
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2834
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2835
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2836
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2837
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 2840
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2841
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2842
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2843
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2845


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 2909
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 2910
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 2914
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2918
Then 2920
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 2921
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 2924
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2929
Then 2931
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 2932
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2942
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 2945
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2950
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2951
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2954
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2955
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2963
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 2966
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2967

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2971
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2972
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. 2984
Then, 2986
∗
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 2987
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2988

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2992
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2993
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 2994
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 2995
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3001
17 Background 3002
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3003
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3004
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3005
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3006
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3007
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3008
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3009
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3010
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3011
with pages 32-55. 3012
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3013
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3014
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3015
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3016
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3017
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3018
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3019
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3020
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3021
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3022
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3023
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3024
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3025
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3026
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3027
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3028
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3029
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3030
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3031
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3032
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3033
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3034
SuperHyperNumbers. 3035
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3036
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3037
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3038
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3039
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3040
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3041
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3042
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3043
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3044
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3045
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3046
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3047
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3048
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3049
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3050
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3051
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3052
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3053
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3054
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3055
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3056
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3057
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3058
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3059
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3060
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3061
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3062
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3063
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3064
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3065
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3066
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3067
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3068
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3069
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3070
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3071
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3072
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3073
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3074
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3075
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3076
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3077
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3078
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3079
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3080
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3081
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3082
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3083
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3084
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3085
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3086
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3087
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3088
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3089
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3090
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3091
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3092
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3093
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3094
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3095
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3096
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3097
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3098
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3099
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3100
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3101
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3102
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3103
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3104
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3105
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3106
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3107
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3108
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3109
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3110
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3111
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [194] by Henry 3112
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3113
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3114
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [195] by Henry Garrett 3115
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3116
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3117
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [196] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3118
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3119
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3120
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [197] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3121
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3122
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [200] by 3123
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3124
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3125
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [201] by Henry 3126
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3127
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3128
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [204] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3129
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3130
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [207] by Henry 3131
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3132
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3133
in Ref. [208] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3134
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3135
Ref. [209] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3136
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3137
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [210] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3138
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3139
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [211] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3140
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3141
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [212] by Henry Garrett 3142
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3143
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [223] by Henry 3144
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3145
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3146
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [224] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–224], there 3147
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3148
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3149
at [225–350]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3150
readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [351, 352]. 3151
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3152
proposed as book in Ref. [351] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3153
Scholar and has more than 4728 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3154
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3155
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3156
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3157
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3158
proposed as book in Ref. [352] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3159
Scholar and has more than 5721 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3160
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3161
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3162
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3163
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3164
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3165
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3166
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3167
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3168
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–224] 3169
alongside scientific research books at [225–350]. Two popular scientific research books 3170
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic 3171
science is on [351, 352]. 3172
References 3173
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3174
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3175
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3176
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3177
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3178
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3179
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3180
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3181
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3182
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3183
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3184
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3185
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3186
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3187
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3188
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3189
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3190
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3191
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3192
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3193
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3194
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3195
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3196
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3197
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3198
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3199
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3200
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3201
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3202
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3203
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3204
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3205
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3206
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3207
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3208
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3209
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3210
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3211
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3212
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3213
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3214
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3215
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3216
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3217
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3218
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3219
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3220
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3221
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3222
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3223
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3224
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3225
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3226
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3227
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3228
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3229
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3230
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3231
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3232
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3233
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3234
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3235
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3236
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3237
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3238
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3239
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3240
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3241
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3242
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3243
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3244
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3245
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3246
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3247
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3248
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3249
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3250
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3251
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3252
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3253
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3255
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3259
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3260
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3261
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3262
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3263
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3264
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3265
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3266
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3267
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3268
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3269
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3270
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3271
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3272
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3273
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3274
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3275
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3276
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3277
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3278
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Strict Connective As Hyper Conceit On Super 3280
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080100). 3281
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse Strict 3282
Connective In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3283
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080068). 3284
SuperHyperGraph By Unequal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3286
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8078445). 3287
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Unequal 3288
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3289
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8078543). 3290
SuperHyperGraph By Strict Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3292
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Strict 3294
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On 3298
Super Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8072171). 3299
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse 3300
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3301
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3304
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8067384). 3305
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Equal 3306
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3307
SuperHyperGraph By Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3310
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8061927). 3311
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Dimension 3312
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3313
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3316
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse 3318
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3322
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Equal 3324
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super 3328
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346). 3329
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 3330
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3334
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3336
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3340
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3341
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3342
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3343
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3344
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3346
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3347
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3348
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3349
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3350
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3352
51. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3354
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3355
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3358
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3359
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3360
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3362
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3364
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3365
55. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3366
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3367
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3370
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3371
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3372
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3373
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3374
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3375
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3376
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3378
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3379
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3381
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3384
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3387
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3390
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3391
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3393
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3396
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3398
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3399
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3402
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3405
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3408
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3409
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3411
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3414
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3415
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3417
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3420
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3423
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3426
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3429
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3432
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3433
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3435
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3436
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3438
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3439
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3441
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3444
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3447
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3448
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3450
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3453
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3454
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3455
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3457
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3458
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3460
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3461
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3462
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3463
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3466
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3469
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3470
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3472
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3473
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3475
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3478
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3481
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3484
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3487
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3490
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3493
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3496
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3499
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3501
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3502
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3503
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3505
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3508
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3509
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3510
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3512
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3514
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3517
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3520
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3521
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3523
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3524
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3526
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3527
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3528
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3529
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3530
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3532
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3535
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3538
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3539
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3541
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3544
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3546
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3548
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3550
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3552
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3553
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3556
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3558
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3559
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3562
120. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3564
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3566
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3568
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3570
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3571
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3574
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3575
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3577
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3580
126. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3582
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3586
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3587
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3589
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3591
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3593
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3595
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3596
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3597
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3598
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3599
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3601
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3602
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3603
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3604
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3607
135. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3609
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3610
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3613
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3615
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3616
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3619
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3621
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3623
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3625
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3626
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3627
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3628
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3631
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3632
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3633
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3634
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3637
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3638
145. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3639
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3640
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3643
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3644
147. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3645
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3646
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3649
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3650
149. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3651
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3652
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3655
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3656
151. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3657
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3658
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3660
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3661
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3664
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3665
154. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3666
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3667
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3670
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3671
156. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3672
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3673
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3676
158. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3678
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3679
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3682
160. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3684
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3685
161. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3687
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3688
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3691
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3694
164. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3696
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3697
165. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3699
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3700
166. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3702
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3703
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3704
167. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3705
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3706
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3707
168. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3708
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3709
169. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3711
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3712
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3713
170. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3714
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3715
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3716
171. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3717
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3718
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3719
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3720
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3723
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3724
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3727
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3728
174. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3729
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3731
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3732
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3735
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3736
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3739
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3740
177. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3741
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3742
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3743
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3744
178. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3745
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3746
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3747
179. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3748
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3749
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3750
180. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3751
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3752
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3753
181. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3754
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3755
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3756
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3757
182. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3758
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3759
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3760
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3761
183. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3762
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3763
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3764
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3765
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3766
184. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3767
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3768
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3769
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3770
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3771
185. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3772
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3773
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3774
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3775
186. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3776
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3777
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3778
187. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3779
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3780
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3782
188. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3783
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3784
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3785
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3786
189. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3787
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3788
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3789
190. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3790
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3791
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3792
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3793
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3794
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3795
191. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3796
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3797
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3798
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3799
192. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3800
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3801
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3802
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3803
193. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3804
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3805
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3806
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3807
194. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3808
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3809
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3810
195. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3811
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3812
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3813
196. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3815
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3816
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3817
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3818
197. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3819
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3820
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3821
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3822
198. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3823
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3824
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3825
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3826
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3828
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3829
200. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3830
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3831
201. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3833
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3834
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3835
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3840
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3844
204. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3845
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3846
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3847
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3848
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3851
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3853
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3854
207. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3855
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3856
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3859
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3860
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3862
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3863
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3866
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3867
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3869
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3870
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3873
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3874
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3876
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3877
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3879
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3884
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3885
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3889
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3890
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3893
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3896
219. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3897
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3898
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3899
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3900
220. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3901
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3902
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3903
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3904
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3907
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3908
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3911
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3912
223. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3913
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3914
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3915
224. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3916
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3917
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3918
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3919
225. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Strict Connective In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3920
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080167). 3921
226. Henry Garrett, “Unequal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3922
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8078574). 3923
227. Henry Garrett, “Strict Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3924
228. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3926
229. Henry Garrett, “Equal Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3928
230. Henry Garrett, “Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3930
231. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3932
232. Henry Garrett, “Equal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3934
233. Henry Garrett, “Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3936
234. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3938
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 3939
235. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3940
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 3941
236. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3942
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 3943
237. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3944
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 3945
238. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3946
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 3947
239. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3948
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 3949
240. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3950
241. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3952
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 3953
242. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3954
243. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3956
244. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3958
245. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3960
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 3961
246. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3962
247. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3964
248. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3966
249. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3968
250. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3970
251. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3972
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 3973
252. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3974
253. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3976
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 3977
254. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3978
255. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3980
256. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3982
257. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3984
258. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3986
259. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3988
260. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3990
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 3991
261. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3992
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 3993
262. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3994
263. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3996
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 3997
264. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3998
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 3999
265. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4000
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4001
266. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4002
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4003
267. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4004
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4005
268. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4006
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4007
269. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4008
270. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4010
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4011
271. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4012
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4013
272. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4014
273. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4016
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4017
274. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4018
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4019
275. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4020
276. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4022
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4023
277. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4024
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4025
278. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4026
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4027
279. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4028
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4029
280. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4030
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4031
281. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4032
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4033
282. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4034
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4035
283. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4036
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4037
284. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4038
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4039
285. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4040
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4041
286. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4042
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4043
287. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4044
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4045
288. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4046
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4047
289. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4048
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4049
290. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4050
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4051
291. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4052
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4053
292. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4054
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4055
293. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4056
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4057
294. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4058
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4059
295. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4060
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4061
296. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4062
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4063
297. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4064
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4065
298. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4066
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4067
299. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4068
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4069
300. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4070
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4071
301. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4072
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4073
302. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4074
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4075
303. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4076
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4077
304. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4078
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4079
305. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4080
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4081
306. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4082
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4083
307. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4084
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4085
308. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4086
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4087
309. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4088
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4089
310. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4090
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4091
311. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4092
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4093
312. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4094
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4095
313. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4096
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4097
314. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4098
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4099
315. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4100
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4101
316. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4102
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4103
317. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4104
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4105
318. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4106
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4107
319. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4108
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4109
320. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4110
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4111
321. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4112
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4113
322. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4114
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4115
323. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4116
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4117
324. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4118
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4119
325. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4120
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4121
326. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4122
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4123
327. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4124
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4125
328. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4126
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4127
329. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4128
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4129
330. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4130
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4131
331. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4132
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4133
332. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4134
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4135
333. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4136
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4137
334. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4138
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4139
335. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4140
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4141
336. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4142
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4143
337. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4144
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4145
338. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4146
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4147
339. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4148
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4149
340. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4150
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4151
341. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4152
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4153
342. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4154
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4155
343. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4156
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4157
344. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4158
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4159
345. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4160
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4161
346. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4162
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4163
347. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4164
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4165
348. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4166
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4167
349. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4168
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4169
350. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4170
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4171
351. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4172
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4173
352. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4174
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4175
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Strict Dimension Dominating In

Preprint · June 2023

514 PUBLICATIONS 23,555 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

Neutrosophic Graphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Strict 2

Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating criteria holds 14

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

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating criteria holds 16

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

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating criteria holds 19

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating criteria holds 21

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

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

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

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 24

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

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

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

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

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

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 30

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

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

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

Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 36

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

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

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 41

Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 42

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 43

Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 44

either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 45

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

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

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

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

Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 51

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

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

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

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

is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 58

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 60

Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 61

SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 62