New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Strict Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371869351
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Strict Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity
Preprint · June 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8084436
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
515 PUBLICATIONS 23,714 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Featured Articles View project
Number Graphs And Numbers 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 In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Strict Dimension Dominating As 3
Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity 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
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
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 “Neutrosophic 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 “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 247
going 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 Neutrosophic 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
Neutrosophic 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 a 269
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 270
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 271
either the optimal SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict 272
Dimension Dominating in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 273
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 274
s 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 “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” on 289
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 290
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 291
this 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 Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, are figured out in sections “ 303
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating”. 304
In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Strict Dimension Dominating to make sense 305
about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going 309
back 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 Neutrosophic 311
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 312
Neutrosophic 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
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 318
“Results on Neutrosophic 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 Neutrosophic 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
(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
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
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 588
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
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 610
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But As Strict Dimension Dominating 657
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 658
Forms 659
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 660
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V 662
is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 663
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 664
probability of A. 665
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 666
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 668
called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 669
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 670
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 671
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 672
criteria 673
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 674
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Any k-function Strict Dimension Dominating 676
like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Strict Dimension 677
Dominating like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 678
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 679
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 680
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 682
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 683
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 684
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 685
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. A Neutrosophic number is called 687
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 688
Crossing criteria 689
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 690
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let m and n 691
propose special Strict Dimension Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 692
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 693
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 694
Neutrosophic independently with probability Strict Dimension Dominating p := 4n/m, and set 695
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 696
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 697
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
698
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 699
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let P be a 700
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 701
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 702
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 703
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 704
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points 705
on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 706
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 707
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 708
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 709
again l < 32n2 /k 3 . 710
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let P be a 712
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 713
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 714
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 715
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 716
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 717
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 718
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
719
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 720
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on 721
the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 722
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 723
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 724
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 725
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 726
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 727
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 728
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 729
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 730
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let X be a 731
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 732
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. 733
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 734
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be a 735
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Strict Dimension Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. 736
If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 737
Proof. 738
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. A special 740
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 741
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph 743
in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 744
SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 745
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 746
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 747
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 748
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 749
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 750
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 751
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 752
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: 753
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 754
nk+1 e−p)(k+1)choose2 ne−pk/2k+1

E(X) ≤ =
(k + 1)! (k + 1)!
Suppose now that k = d2p−1 log ne. Then k ≥ 2p−1 log n, so ne−pk/2 ≤ 1. Because k 755
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 756
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 757
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 758
stability number at most k. 759
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 760
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 762
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 763
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 764
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let X be a 766
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 767
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let X be a Neutrosophic 769
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 770
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
771
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be a 773
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Strict Dimension Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 774
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 775
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Set X := Xn and 777
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 778
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 779
when Xn = 0. 780
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 782
0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for 783
which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 784
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 785
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. As in the proof of related 787
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 788
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 and 790
let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 791
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 792
or 793
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 794
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. The latter is 796
straightforward. 797
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 798
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 800
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 801
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 802
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 803
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 804
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 805
S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 807
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 808
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 809
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. Let F be a 811
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 812
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 813
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 814
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Strict Dimension Dominating. The latter is 816
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 818
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 819
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 820
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 821
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 822
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 823
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 824
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 825
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 826
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 827
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 828
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 829
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Strict Dimension Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Strict Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
830
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 833
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 834
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 835
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 836
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 837
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 838
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 839

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
840
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 843

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




{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
848

{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
852


{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
856

{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
860




{E1 , E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V11 }}.
= z 3−a .
864

{E3i+1 , E23 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 , V11 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
868


{EN SHG − {E1 , E5 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V11 }}.
= z 3−a .
872

{EN SHG − {E1 , E6 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
Figure 10. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example
(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)
876

{EN SHG − {E1 , E2 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 5−a .
880

(16.3)

{EN SHG − {E6 , E9 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
884

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .
888

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
892

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

(16.3)

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

{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
904

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }3i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2i+1 }5i=0 .
= z 2−a .
908

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

(16.3)
912

{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .
916

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .
920
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 921
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 922
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating if for any of them, and any of other 923
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 924
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 925
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 926
amount of them. 927
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 928
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 929
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 930
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating minus all Neutrosophic 931
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 932
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 933
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating, minus 934
all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 935
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Strict Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension 936
Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 937
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 938
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 939
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 940
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating in 941
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 942
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 943
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating. 944
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Strict Dimension Dominating has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Strict Dimension Dominating with the least Neutrosophic 945
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 946
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 947
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 948
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−StrictDimensionDominating

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−StrictDimensionDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Strict Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, 949
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Strict Dimension 950
Dominating is the cardinality of 951

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−StrictDimensionDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-Strict Dimension
Dominating since neither amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor amount of
SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of

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

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the
generality of the connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we
assume in the worst case, literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-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 952
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 953
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 954
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 955
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 956
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 957
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 958
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 959
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating decorates

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

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

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 960
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 961
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 962
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 963
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 964
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

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

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

z
and
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating.

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong
to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 965
Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
966
Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating =

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Strict 967
Dimension Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 968
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 969
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 970
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 971
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating in 972
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 973
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 974
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension 975
Dominating. 976
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 977
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 978
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 979
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 980
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 981
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 982
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 983
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 984
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 985
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 986
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 987
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating where 988
the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 989
literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Strict Dimension Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of 990
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 991
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 992
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 993
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 994
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 995
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 996
Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 997
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 998
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 999
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1000
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct 1001
types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension 1002
Dominating. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one 1003
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the 1004
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In 1005
the embedded Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior 1006
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 1007
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 1008
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1009
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1010
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1011
R-Strict Dimension Dominating. The Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating with the exclusion of 1012
the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1013
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating with 1014
the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1015
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating. To sum them up, in a 1016
connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 1017
one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1018
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1019
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor 1020
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique 1021
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic 1022
SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating, minus all 1023
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1024
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating has two titles. a 1025
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1026
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1027
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating with 1028
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1029
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1030
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1031
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominatings for all Neutrosophic 1032
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1033
Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the 1034
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating, again and more in the operations of 1035
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominatings acted on the all possible 1036
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic 1037
number. This Neutrosophic number is 1038
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Strict Dimension 1039
Dominatings. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1040
GNeutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1041
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating. Then 1042
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating is 1043
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1044
GNeutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number
{SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1045
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating. 1046
GNeutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1047
Strict Dimension Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1048

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1049

= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1050


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1051
GNeutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1052

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

1053


1054


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1055
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1056
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1057
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1058
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Strict Dimension Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the 1059
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Strict Dimension Dominating” since “Neutrosophic 1060
Quasi-Strict Dimension Dominating” happens “Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating” in a 1061
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1062
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic Strict Dimension 1063
Dominating” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily 1064
background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1065
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1066
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-Strict Dimension Dominating”, 1067
and “Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating” are up. 1068
Thus, let 1069
zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1070
GNeutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1071
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating and the new terms 1072
are up. 1073
GNeutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1074

{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1075

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1076

And with go back to initial structure, 1077
GNeutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1078

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1079


1080


Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1081
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-Strict Dimension 1082
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic 1083
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1084
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all 1085
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1086
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1087
are coming up. 1088
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension
Dominating.
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension

. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Dominating
Is an Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1089
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1090
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1091
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic 1092
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1093
Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating is related to the Neutrosophic

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
Strict Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic

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

. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
Dimension Dominating
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1094
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1095
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1096
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1097
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating and it’s an 1098
Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1099
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Strict Dimension Dominating, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1100
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1101
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1102
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1103
“Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating” 1104
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1105
Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating, 1106
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic Strict
Dimension Dominating, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1107
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1108
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1109
quasi-R-Strict Dimension Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1110
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1111
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1112
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1113
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1114
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1115
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1116
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1117
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1118
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1119
Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1120
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1121
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1122
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1123
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1124
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1125
R-Strict Dimension Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1126
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1128
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1129
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1130
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1131
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1132
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1133
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1134
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1135
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1136
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1137
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1138
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1139
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1140
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating, VESHE is up. The obvious 1141
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating, 1142
VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1143
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1144
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1145
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1146
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1147
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1148
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1149
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1150
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1151
Neutrosophic R-Strict Dimension Dominating only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1152
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1153
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1154
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1155
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1156
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1158
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Strict Dimension Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1159
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1160
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1161
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating. The 1162
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1163

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−StrictDimensionDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−StrictDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Strict Dimension 1164
. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Dominating 1165
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1166

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1167
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1168
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1170
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1171
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1172
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1173
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating 1174
is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic 1175
Strict Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only two Neutrosophic 1176
SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1177

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1179
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1180
Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1181
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1182

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Strict 1183
. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1186
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1187
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1188
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1189
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating and it’s an 1190
Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1191
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1193
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1194
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1195
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1196
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1197

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating , 1198

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Strict 1199
, not:

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1201

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1202
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1203
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1204
“Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating ” 1205
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1206
Neutrosophic Strict Dimension Dominating , 1207
is only and only 1208

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1209
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1210
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1211
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1212
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1213
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1214
Then 1215

|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 1216
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1217
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1218
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1219
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 1220
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1221
The latter is straightforward. 1222
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1223
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1224
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1225
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1226
Then 1227

|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 1228
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1229
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1230
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1231

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1235
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1236
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1237
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1239
Then 1240

{EN SHG − {E1 , E2 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {ViIN T ERN AL , CEN T ER}}.
= z 3−a .
Proof. Let 1241
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

1242
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1243
There’s a new way to redefine as 1244

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1248
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1249
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1250
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1251
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1252
Dominating. 1253
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1254
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1255

{EN SHG − {EPi , EPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
{VN SHG − {VPi , VPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
Proof. Let 1256
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
1257
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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1258
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1259

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1262
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1263
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. 1264
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1265
the 1266
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1267
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1268
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1269
solution 1270
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1272
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1273
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1274
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1275
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1276
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1277
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1278
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1279

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

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Example
(16.11)
Proof. Let 1280
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
1281
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 1283

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1286
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1287
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1288
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.13)
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1289
the 1290
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1291
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1292
solution 1294
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1296
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1297
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1298
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1299
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1300
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1301
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1302
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1303
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1304

|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 1305
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1306
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1308

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1311
Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperStrict 1312
Dimension Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1313
Dominating proposes some longest SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating excerpt from some 1314
representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1315
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1317
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1318
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1319
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1320
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1322
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1323
For the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, 1324
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, some general results are 1325
introduced. 1326
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neu-

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is 1327
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1328
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. Then 1329
N eutrosophic SuperHyperStrictDimensionDominating =
{theSuperHyperStrictDimensionDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperStrictDimensionDominating
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperStrictDimensionDominating. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1330
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1331
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1332
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1333
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and 1334
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating coincide. 1335
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1337
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1338
Dominating. 1339
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1341
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1342
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1343
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1344
Dominating is its SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1345
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1346
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1347
SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1348
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is its SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1349
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1350
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1351
Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1352
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1353
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1354
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1355

Dominating 1357
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating isn’t 1358
well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1359
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1360
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1361
Dominating is well-defined. 1362
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1363
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1364
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1365

Dominating 1367
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is well-defined 1368
if and only if its SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1369
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1370
is 1371
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1372
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1373
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1374
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1375
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1376
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1377
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1378
∅ is 1379
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1380
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1381
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1382
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1383
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1384
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1385
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1386
independent SuperHyperSet is 1387
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1388
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1389
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1390
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1391
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1392
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1393
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1394
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V is 1395
a maximal 1396
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1397
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1398
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1399
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1400
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1401
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1402
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1403
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1404
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1405
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1406
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1407
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1408
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1409
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1410
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1411
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1412
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1414
number of 1415
(i) : the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1416
(ii) : the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1417
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1418
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1419
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1420
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1421
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1422
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1423
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1425
(i) : the dual SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1426
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1427
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1428
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1429
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1430
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1431
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1432
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1435
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1436
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1437
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1438
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1442
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1443
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1444
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1447
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1448
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1449
is a 1450
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1454
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1455
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1456
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1459
number of 1460
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1464
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1465
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1466
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1467
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1468
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1469
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1471
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1472
(iv) : SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1476
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1477
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1478
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1479
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1480
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1481
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1482
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1483
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1487
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1489
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1491
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1492
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1496
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1497
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1498
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1500
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1502
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1503
of a dual 1504
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1508
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1509
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1510
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1512
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1513
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1514
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. 1520
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1521
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1522
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1523
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1524
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1525
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1526
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then 1527
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1528
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1529
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1530
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1531
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then 1532
(i) S is SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating set; 1533
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1534
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1535
Then 1536
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1537
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1538
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1539
which is connected. Then 1540
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1541
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1542
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1543
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1544
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1545
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1546
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1547
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1548
a dual SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1549
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1550
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1551
Dominating; 1552
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1553
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1554
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1555
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1556
dual SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1557
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. Then 1558
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1559
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1561
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1562
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1563
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1564
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. Then 1566
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1567
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1569
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1570
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1571
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1573
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1574
(ii) Γ = 1; 1575
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1576
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1577
Dominating. 1578
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1579
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1580
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1581
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1582
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1583
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1584
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1585
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1586
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict 1587
Dimension Dominating; 1588
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1589
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1590
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1591
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1593
bn
2c
Dimension Dominating; 1595
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1596
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 1597
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1598
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1600
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1601
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1602
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1603
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1604
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1605
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperStrict 1606
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1607
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1608
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1609
SuperHyperSet. Then 1610
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1611
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1612
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1613
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1614
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1615
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1616
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1617
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1618
SuperHyperSet. Then 1619
bn
2c
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1621
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1622
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1623
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only dual maximal SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1624
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1625
Then following statements hold; 1627
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1628
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1629
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1630
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1631
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1632
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1633
Then following statements hold; 1635
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1636
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1637
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1638
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1639
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1640
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1641
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1642
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1643
statements hold; 1644
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1645
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1646
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1647
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1649
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1651
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1652
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1653
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1654
statements hold; 1655
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1656
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1658
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1660
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1662
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1663
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1665
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1666
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1667
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1669
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1671
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1674
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1676
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1677
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1678
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1680
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1682
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating; 1683
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1685
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperStrict 1687
Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1688
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1689
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1691
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1693
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1696
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperStrict 1698
Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1699
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1700
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1702
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1704
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. 1707
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1708
Neutrosophic Recognition 1709
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1710
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1711
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1712
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1713
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1714
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1715
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1716
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1717
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1718
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1719
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1720
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1721
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1722
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1723
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1724
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1725
happened and what’s done. 1726
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1727
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1728
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1729
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1730
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, 1731
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 1732
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict 1733
Dimension Dominating or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating in those 1734
Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1735
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1736
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1737
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1738
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1739
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1740
featured. 1741
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1742
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1743
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1744
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1745
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1746
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1748
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1749
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1750
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1751
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1752
Neutrosophic featured. 1753
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1754
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1755
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1756
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1757
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1758
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1760
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1761
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1762
The SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1763
Dominating are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1764
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1765
recognitions? 1766
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1767
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating?

Dominating 1768
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1769
compute them? 1770
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1771
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating? 1772
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic 1773
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1774
they’re based on SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, are there else? 1775
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1776
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1777
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1778
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1779
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1780
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1781
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1782
highlighted. 1783
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1784
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1785
SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1786
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1787
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 1788
SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, finds the convenient 1789
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1790
some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of 1791
the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1792
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1793
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1794
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1795
the SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension 1796
Dominating. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way 1797
through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the 1798
notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1799
are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the 1800
background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, 1801
full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel 1802
proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the 1803
cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the 1804
architecture are formally called “ SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating” in the themes of 1805
jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded 1806
styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6),
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperStrict Dimension Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1807
benefits and avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1808
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1809
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1810
Forms 1811
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1812
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1816
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1817
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1818
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1819
|Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1820
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1821
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1822
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1823
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1824
|Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1825
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1826
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1827
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1828
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1829
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1832
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1834
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1835
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 1836
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1837
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1839
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1840
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1843
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1847
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1848
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1849
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1850
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1851
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1856
Extreme coefficient; 1857
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1858
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1859
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1861
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1862
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1867
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1868
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1869
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1874
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1876
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1877
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1884
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1885
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1893
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1895
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1904
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1905
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1909
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1910
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1911
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1912
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1913
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1914
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1915
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1916
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1919
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1920
SuperHyperDuality. 1925


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1988
ESHP : (V, E). Then 1989
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1990
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1994
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1998
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1999
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2000
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 2001
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2012
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2013
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2023
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2026
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 2031
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2032
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2033
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2034
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2035
solution 2038
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2045

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2048
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2049

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2055
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2060
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2068
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 2070
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2071
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2072
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2073

∃!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 2078
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2079
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2086
Forms 2088
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2089
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2093
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2094
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2095
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2096
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2098
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2099
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2100
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2101
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2103
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2104
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2105
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2106
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2109
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2110
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2111
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2116
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2117
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2119
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2124
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2125
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2126
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2127
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2128
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2133
coefficient; 2134
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2135
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2138
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2139
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2140
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2144
coefficient; 2145
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2146
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2149
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2150
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2153
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2154
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2161
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2162
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2170
coefficient; 2171
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2172
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2181
coefficient. 2182
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2186
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2187
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2188
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2189
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2190
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2191
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2192
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2193
SuperHyperJoin. 2194
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

.
Proof. Let 2268
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2272
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2276

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

.
Proof. Let 2279
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2290
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2291

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2301
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2304
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 2309
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2310
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2311
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2313
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2314
solution 2316
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2323

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2326
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2327

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2331
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2332
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2333
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2338
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2346

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

.
Proof. Let 2349
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2350

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2354
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2355
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2356
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2357
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2364
Forms 2366
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2367
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2371
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2372
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2373
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2374
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2376
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2377
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2378
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2379
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2381
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2382
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2383
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2384
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2387
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2389
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2392
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2394
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2395
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2402
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2403
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2404
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2405
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2411
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2413
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2414
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2422
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2424
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2429
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2431
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2432
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2439
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2440
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2448
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2450
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2459
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2464
SuperHyperPerfect. 2472
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2546
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2550
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2554
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2557
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2568
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2569

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2579
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2582
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 2587
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2588
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2589
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2590
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2591
solution 2594
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2601

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2604
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2605

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2609
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2610
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2611
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2616
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2624
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2627

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2628

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2632
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2633
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2634
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2635
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2642
Forms 2644
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2645
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2649
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2650
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2651
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2652
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2654
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2655
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2656
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2657
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2659
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2660
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2661
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2662
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2665
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2667
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2672
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2673
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2675
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2680
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2681
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2682
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2689
coefficient; 2690
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2691
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2700
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2702
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2709
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2710
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2717
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2718
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2726
coefficient; 2727
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2728
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2737
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2742
SuperHyperTotal. 2750
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2824
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2828
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2832
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2835
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2846
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2847
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2857
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2860
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2865
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2866
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2869
solution 2872
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2879

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2882
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2883

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2887
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2888
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2894
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2902
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2905
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2906

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2910
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2911
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2912
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2913
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2920
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2921
Forms 2922
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2923
SuperHyperConnected). 2924
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2928
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2929
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2930
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2931
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2932
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2933
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2935
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2936
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2937
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2938
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2939
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2940
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2942
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2943
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2944
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2945
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2948
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2950
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2951
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2952
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2953
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2955
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2956
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2959
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 2960
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2963
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2964
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2965
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2966
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2967
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2968
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2969
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2970
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2972
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2973
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2974
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2975
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2976
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2977
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 2978
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 2979
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2980
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 2981
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 2982
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2983
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2984
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2985
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2988
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2989
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 2990
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 2991
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2992
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2993
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2996
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 2997
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3000
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3001
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3004
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 3005
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 3006
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3007
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 3008
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3010
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3012
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3015
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 3016
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 3017
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3018
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3021
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3022
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3026
SuperHyperConnected. 3034
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3108
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3112
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3116
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3119
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3130
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3131
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3141
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3144
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3149
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3150
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3153
solution 3156
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3163
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3166
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3171
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3172
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3178
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3186
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3189
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3191

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3194
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3195
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3196
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3197
17 Background 3205
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3206
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3207
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3208
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3209
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3210
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3211
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3212
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3213
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3214
with pages 32-55. 3215
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3216
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3217
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3218
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3219
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3220
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3221
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3222
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3223
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3224
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3225
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3226
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3227
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3228
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3229
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3230
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3231
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3232
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3233
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3234
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3235
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3236
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3237
SuperHyperNumbers. 3238
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 3239
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 3240
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett 3241
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3242
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 3243
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 3244
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 3245
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math 3246
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 3247
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 3248
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3249
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and 3250
groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree 3251
alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic 3252
hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel 3253
approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3254
based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic 3255
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal 3256
of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J 3257
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 2 and issue 1 with pages 16-24. The research 3258
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3259
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3260
background. The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic 3261
hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward 3262
independent results based on initial background. In some articles are titled “0039 — 3263
Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring 3264
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [6] by 3265
Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” 3266
in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme 3267
of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3268
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty 3269
On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward 3270
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled 3271
Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of 3272
Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 3273
in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The 3274
Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3275
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) 3276
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3277
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and 3278
Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed 3279
SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3280
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the 3281
Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes 3282
in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism 3283
of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition 3284
Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3285
“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3286
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 3287
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 3288
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [16] by Henry 3289
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 3290
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 3291
Beyond ” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 3292
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” 3293
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3294
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3295
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3296
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3297
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3298
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3299
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3300
in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3301
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 3302
Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 3303
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3304
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3305
And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3306
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3307
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3308
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3309
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3310
Treatments” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3311
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3312
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett 3313
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3314
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [194] by Henry 3315
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3316
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3317
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [195] by Henry Garrett 3318
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3319
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3320
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [196] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3321
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3322
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3323
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [197] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3324
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3325
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [200] by 3326
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3327
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3328
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [201] by Henry 3329
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3330
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3331
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [204] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3332
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3333
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [207] by Henry 3334
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3335
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3336
in Ref. [208] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3337
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3338
Ref. [209] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3339
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3340
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [210] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3341
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3342
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [211] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3343
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3344
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [212] by Henry Garrett 3345
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3346
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [223] by Henry 3347
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3348
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3349
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [224] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–224], there 3350
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3351
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3352
at [225–350]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3353
readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [351, 352]. 3354
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3355
proposed as book in Ref. [351] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3356
Scholar and has more than 4728 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3357
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3358
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3359
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3360
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3361
proposed as book in Ref. [352] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3362
Scholar and has more than 5721 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3363
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3364
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3365
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3366
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3367
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3368
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3369
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3370
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3371
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–224] 3372
alongside scientific research books at [225–350]. Two popular scientific research books 3373
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic 3374
science is on [351, 352]. 3375
References 3376
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3377
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3378
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3379
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3380
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3381
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3382
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3383
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3384
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3385
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3386
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3387
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3388
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3389
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3390
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3391
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3392
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3393
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3394
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3395
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3396
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3397
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3398
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3399
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3400
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3401
6. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3402
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3403
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3404
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3405
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3406
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3407
7. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3408
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3409
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3410
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3411
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3412
8. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3413
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3414
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3415
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3416
9. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3417
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3418
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3419
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3420
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3421
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3422
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3423
11. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3424
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3425
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3426
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3427
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3428
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3429
12. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3430
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3431
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3432
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3433
13. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3434
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3435
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3436
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3437
14. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3438
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3439
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3440
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3441
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3442
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3443
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3444
16. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3445
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3446
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3447
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3448
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3449
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3450
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3451
18. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3452
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3453
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3454
19. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3455
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3456
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3458
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3462
21. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3463
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3464
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3465
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3466
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3467
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3468
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3469
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3470
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3471
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3472
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3473
24. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3474
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3475
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3476
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3477
25. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3478
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3479
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3480
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3481
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Strict Connective As Hyper Conceit On Super 3483
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080100). 3484
27. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse Strict 3485
Connective In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3486
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080068). 3487
SuperHyperGraph By Unequal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3489
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8078445). 3490
29. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Unequal 3491
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3492
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8078543). 3493
SuperHyperGraph By Strict Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3495
31. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Strict 3497
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On 3501
Super Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8072171). 3502
33. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse 3503
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3504
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3507
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8067384). 3508
35. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Equal 3509
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3510
SuperHyperGraph By Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3513
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8061927). 3514
37. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Dimension 3515
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3516
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3519
39. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse 3521
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3525
41. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Equal 3527
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super 3531
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346). 3532
43. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 3533
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3537
45. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3539
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3543
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3544
47. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3545
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3546
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3547
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3549
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3550
49. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3551
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3552
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3553
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3555
51. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3557
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3558
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3561
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3562
53. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3563
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3565
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3567
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3568
55. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3569
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3570
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3573
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3574
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3575
57. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3576
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3577
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3578
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3579
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3581
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3582
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3584
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3587
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3590
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3593
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3594
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3596
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3599
65. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3601
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3602
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3605
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3608
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3611
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3612
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3614
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3617
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3618
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3620
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3623
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3626
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3629
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3632
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3635
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3636
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3638
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3639
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3641
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3642
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3644
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3647
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3650
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3651
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3653
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3656
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3657
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3658
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3660
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3661
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3663
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3664
86. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3665
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3666
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3669
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3672
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3673
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3675
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3676
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3678
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3681
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3684
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3687
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3690
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3693
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3696
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3699
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3702
99. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3704
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3705
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3706
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3708
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3711
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3712
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3713
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3715
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3717
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3720
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3723
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3724
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3726
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3727
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3729
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3730
108. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3731
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3732
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3733
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3735
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3738
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3741
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3742
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3744
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3747
114. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3749
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3751
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3753
116. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3755
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3756
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3759
118. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3761
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3762
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3765
120. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3767
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3769
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3771
122. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3773
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3774
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3777
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3778
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3780
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3783
126. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3785
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3787
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3789
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3790
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3792
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3794
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3796
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3798
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3799
131. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3800
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3801
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3802
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3804
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3805
133. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3806
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3807
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3810
135. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3812
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3813
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3816
137. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3818
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3819
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3822
139. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3824
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3826
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3828
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3829
141. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3830
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3831
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3834
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3835
143. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3836
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3837
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3840
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3841
145. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3842
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3843
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3846
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3847
147. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3848
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3849
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3852
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3853
149. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3854
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3855
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3858
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3859
151. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3860
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3861
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3863
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3864
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3867
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3868
154. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3869
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3870
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3873
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3874
156. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3875
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3876
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3879
158. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3881
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3882
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3885
160. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3887
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3888
161. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3890
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3891
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3894
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3897
164. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3899
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3900
165. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3902
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3903
166. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3905
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3906
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3907
167. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3908
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3909
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3910
168. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3911
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3912
169. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3914
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3915
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3916
170. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3917
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3918
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3919
171. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3920
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3921
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3922
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3923
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3926
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3927
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3930
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3931
174. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3932
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3934
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3935
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3938
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3939
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3942
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3943
177. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3944
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3945
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3946
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3947
178. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3948
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3949
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3950
179. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3951
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3952
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3953
180. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3954
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3955
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3956
181. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3957
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3958
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3959
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3960
182. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3961
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3962
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3963
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3964
183. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3965
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3966
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3967
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3968
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3969
184. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3970
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3971
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3972
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3973
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3974
185. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3975
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3976
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3977
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3978
186. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3979
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3980
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3981
187. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3982
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3983
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3985
188. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3986
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3987
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3988
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3989
189. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3990
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3991
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3992
190. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3993
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3994
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3995
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3996
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3997
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3998
191. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3999
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 4000
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 4001
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 4002
192. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 4003
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 4004
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 4005
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 4006
193. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 4007
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4008
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 4009
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 4010
194. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 4011
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 4012
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 4013
195. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 4014
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 4015
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 4016
196. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4018
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4019
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4020
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4021
197. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 4022
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 4023
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 4024
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 4025
198. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4026
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4027
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4028
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4029
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4031
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4032
200. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4033
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 4034
201. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 4036
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 4037
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 4038
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4043
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4047
204. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4048
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4049
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4050
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4051
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4054
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4056
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4057
207. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4058
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4059
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4062
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4063
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4065
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4066
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4069
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4070
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4072
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4073
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4076
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4077
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4079
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4080
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 4082
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4087
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4088
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 4092
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 4093
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4096
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 4099
219. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4100
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4101
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4102
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4103
220. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4104
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4105
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4106
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 4107
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4110
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4111
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4114
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 4115
223. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4116
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4117
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4118
224. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4119
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4120
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4121
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4122
225. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Strict Connective In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4123
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080167). 4124
226. Henry Garrett, “Unequal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4125
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8078574). 4126
227. Henry Garrett, “Strict Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4127
228. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4129
229. Henry Garrett, “Equal Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4131
230. Henry Garrett, “Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4133
231. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4135
232. Henry Garrett, “Equal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4137
233. Henry Garrett, “Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4139
234. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4141
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 4142
235. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4143
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 4144
236. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4145
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 4146
237. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4147
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 4148
238. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4149
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 4150
239. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4151
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 4152
240. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4153
241. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4155
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 4156
242. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4157
243. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4159
244. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4161
245. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4163
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 4164
246. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4165
247. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4167
248. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4169
249. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4171
250. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4173
251. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4175
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4176
252. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4177
253. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4179
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4180
254. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4181
255. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4183
256. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4185
257. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4187
258. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4189
259. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4191
260. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4193
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4194
261. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4195
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4196
262. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4197
263. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4199
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4200
264. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4201
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4202
265. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4203
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4204
266. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4205
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4206
267. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4207
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4208
268. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4209
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4210
269. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4211
270. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4213
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4214
271. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4215
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4216
272. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4217
273. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4219
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4220
274. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4221
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4222
275. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4223
276. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4225
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4226
277. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4227
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4228
278. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4229
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4230
279. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4231
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4232
280. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4233
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4234
281. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4235
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4236
282. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4237
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4238
283. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4239
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4240
284. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4241
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4242
285. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4243
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4244
286. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4245
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4246
287. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4247
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4248
288. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4249
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4250
289. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4251
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4252
290. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4253
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4254
291. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4255
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4256
292. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4257
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4258
293. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4259
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4260
294. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4261
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4262
295. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4263
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4264
296. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4265
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4266
297. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4267
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4268
298. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4269
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4270
299. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4271
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4272
300. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4273
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4274
301. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4275
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4276
302. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4277
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4278
303. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4279
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4280
304. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4281
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4282
305. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4283
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4284
306. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4285
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4286
307. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4287
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4288
308. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4289
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4290
309. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4291
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4292
310. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4293
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4294
311. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4295
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4296
312. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4297
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4298
313. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4299
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4300
314. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4301
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4302
315. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4303
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4304
316. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4305
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4306
317. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4307
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4308
318. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4309
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4310
319. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4311
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4312
320. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4313
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4314
321. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4315
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4316
322. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4317
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4318
323. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4319
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4320
324. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4321
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4322
325. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4323
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4324
326. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4325
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4326
327. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4327
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4328
328. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4329
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4330
329. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4331
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4332
330. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4333
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4334
331. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4335
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4336
332. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4337
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4338
333. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4339
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4340
334. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4341
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4342
335. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4343
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4344
336. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4345
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4346
337. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4347
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4348
338. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4349
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4350
339. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4351
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4352
340. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4353
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4354
341. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4355
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4356
342. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4357
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4358
343. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4359
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4360
344. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4361
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4362
345. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4363
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4364
346. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4365
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4366
347. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4367
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4368
348. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4369
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4370
349. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4371
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4372
350. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4373
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4374
351. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4375
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4376
352. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4377
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4378
View publication stats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Strict Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ideas in Recognition of Cancer and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph by Strict Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · June 2023

515 PUBLICATIONS 23,714 CITATIONS

Featured Articles View project

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Strict Dimension Dominating As 3

Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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