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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371905718
New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Unequal Dimension Dominating

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8088387
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
518 PUBLICATIONS 24,095 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Combinatorics View project
On Fuzzy Logic View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 27 June 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

and |Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 17
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 18
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal 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-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if the following expression is called 20
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating criteria holds 21

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; Neutrosophic 22
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 23
Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 24
v-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 25
Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperUnequal 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
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 29
Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 32
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 33
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 34
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 35
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 36
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 37
re-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 38
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 39
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 40
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 41
of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 42
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 43
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 44
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 45
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 46
Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 49
Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 50
SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 51
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 52
form the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is 53
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 54
Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 55
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 58
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 59
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 60
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 61
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 62
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; and the 63
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme 64
V-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 65
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme 69
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 70
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 71
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 72
Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 73
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a 75
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 76
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 77
of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 78
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 79
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 80
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 81
Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 82
Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 85
Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 86
SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 87
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 88
form the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is 89
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 90
Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 91
Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 94
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 95
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic 96
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic 97
cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 98
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 99
Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In 100
this scientific research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a 101
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 102
Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes 103
further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 104
on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 105
whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 106
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 107
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 108
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 109
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 110
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 111
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 112
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 113
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 114
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 115
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 116
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 117
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 118
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 119
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 120
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 121
δ−SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 122
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 123
(Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are 124
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 125
Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 126
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 127
is a maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic 128
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic 129
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: 130
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; 131
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, 132
holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds 133
if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” 134
version of a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating . Since there’s more ways to get 135
type-results to make a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating more understandable. For the 136
sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, there’s a need to 137
“redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices 138
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 139
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 140
Assume a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating . It’s redefined a Neutrosophic 141
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The 142
Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to 143
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The 144
Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The 145
SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The 146
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum 147
Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of 148
Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the 149
next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 150
Dominating . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous 151
definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all 152
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating until the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then it’s 153
officially called a “SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” but otherwise, it isn’t a 154
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating . There are some instances about the clarifications 155
for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating ”. These two 156
examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the 157
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 158
. For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, there’s a 159
need to “redefine” the notion of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” 160
and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating ”. The SuperHyperVertices and 161
the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In 162
this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 163
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic 164
SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 165
Dominating are redefined to a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” if the 166
intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. 167
Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic 168
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic 169
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 170
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, 171
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 172
SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic 173
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic 174
SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic 175
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 176
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” where it’s the strongest [the maximum 177
Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating amid the maximum 178
value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating .] 179
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a 180
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 181
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 182
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 183
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s only 184
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar 185
it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 186
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 187
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 188
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 189
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 190
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 191
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 192
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 193
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 194
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 195
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 196
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 197
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 198
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 199
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 200
the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 201
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be 202
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 203
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 204
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 205
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 206
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 207
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic 208
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 209
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 210
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 211
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 212
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 213
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 214
either the longest SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating or the strongest SuperHyperUnequal 215
Dimension Dominating in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 216
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, called SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, and the 217
strongest SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, called Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 218
Dimension Dominating, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, 219
all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since 220
it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 221
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperUnequal 222
Dimension Dominating but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 223
Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with 224
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and 225
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 226
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, 227
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 228
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 229
2 Applied Notions Under The Scrutiny Of The 230
Motivation Of This Scientific Research 231
In this scientific research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of 232
motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 233
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In 234
this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the 235
cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive 236
labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the 237
embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered 238
as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting 239
more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 240
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 241
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 242
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 243
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 244
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 245
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 246
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 247
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 248
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 249
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 250
called “Extreme SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going 251
to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 252
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 253
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 254
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 255
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 256
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 257
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 258
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 259
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 260
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 261
formally called “ SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 262
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 263
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 264
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 265
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 266
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 267
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 268
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 269
Extreme SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 270
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 271
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 272
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an 273
Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 274
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 275
either the optimal SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating or the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal 276
Dimension Dominating in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 277
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s 278
have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 279
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. There 280
isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating but literarily, it’s the 281
deformation of any SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it 282
doesn’t form. 283
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 284
find the “ amount of SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” of either individual of cells or the 285
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 286
of SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups 287
of group of cells? 288
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 289
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 290
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 291
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ 292
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” 293
on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Extreme SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 294
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 295
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 296
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 297
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 298
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 299
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 300
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 301
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are 302
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 303
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 304
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 305
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 306
Dominating and Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, are figured out in sections “ 307
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” and “Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating”. 308
In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Unequal Dimension Dominating to make sense 309
about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme 310
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 311
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 312
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back 313
to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 314
extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Extreme 315
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 316
Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 317
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 318
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 319
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited 320
and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating”, 321
“Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 322
“Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s 323
done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and 324
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as 325
presented in section, “ SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating”. The keyword of this 326
research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and 327
subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 328
SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite 329
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and 330
discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of 331
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. 332
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this 333
research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the 334
section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 335
3 Extreme Preliminaries Of This Scientific 336
Research On the Redeemed Ways 337
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 338
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 339
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.5,p.2), 340
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 341
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 342
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 343
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [1],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 344
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 345
(Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 346
to Ref. [227]. 347
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 348
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 349
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.1,p.1). 350
Let X be a Unequal 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 351
+
]− 0, 1 [. 352
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2). 353
Let X be a Unequal 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 354
2.5,p.2). 355
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 356
pair S = (V, E), where 357
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 358
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 359
1, 2, . . . , n); 360
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 361
V; 362
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 363
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 364
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 365
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 366
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 367
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 368
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,
IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

and FV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[FV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0
where i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 . 369
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 370
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 371
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 372
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 373
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 374
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 375
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 376
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 377
the ii0 th element of the Unequal Dimension Dominating of Neutrosophic 378
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 379
and E are crisp sets. 380
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 381
(Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3). 382
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 383
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 384
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 385
characterized as follow-up items. 386
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 387
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 388
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 389
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 390
HyperEdge; 391
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 392
SuperEdge; 393
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 394
SuperHyperEdge. 395
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 396
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 397
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3). 398
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 399
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 400
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 401
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 402
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 403
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 404
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

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

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 405
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 406
pair S = (V, E), where 407
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 408
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 409
1, 2, . . . , n); 410
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 411
V; 412
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 413
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 414
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 415
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 416
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 417
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 418
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 419
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 420
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 421
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 422
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 423
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 424
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 425
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 426
the ii0 th element of the Unequal Dimension Dominating of Neutrosophic 427
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 428
and E are crisp sets. 429
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 430
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 432
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 433
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 434
characterized as follow-up items. 435
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 436
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 437
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 438
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 439
HyperEdge; 440
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 441
SuperEdge; 442
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 443
SuperHyperEdge. 444
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 445
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 446
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 447
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 448
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 449
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 450
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 451
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 452
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 453
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 454
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 455
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 456
given SuperHyperEdges; 457
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 458
SuperHyperEdges; 459
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 460
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 461
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 462
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 463
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 464
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 465
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 466
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 467
common SuperVertex. 468
Definition 3.14. Let a pair S = (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)

S. Then a sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 469
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 470
of following conditions hold: 471
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 472
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 478
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 479
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 480
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 481
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 482
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). a

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 483
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 484
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 485
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 486
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 487
SuperHyperPath . 488
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 489
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). A

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have 491
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 492
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 493
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 494
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 495
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 496
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 497
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 498
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 499
(ix) Neutrosophic t-Connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 500
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 501
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 502
(x) Neutrosophic i-Connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 503
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 504
(xi) Neutrosophic f-Connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 506
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 507
(xii) Neutrosophic Connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 509
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 510
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 511
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 512
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 513
Dimension Dominating). 514
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 516
either V 0 or E 0 is called 517
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if the following 518
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 519
criteria holds 520

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

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

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

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 531
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 532
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 533
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 535
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating). 536
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 538
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 539
e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 540
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic 541
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 542
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 543
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 544
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 545
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 546
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 547
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 548
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) 551
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 552
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 553
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 554
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 555
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 556
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 557
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 558
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 561
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 562
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 563
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 564
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is 566
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 567
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 568
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 569
v-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal 571
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 572
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 573
Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 574
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 575
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 576
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 577
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is 578
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 579
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 580
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 584
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 585
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 586
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 588
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 589
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 593
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 594
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 595
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 596
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 597
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 598
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 602
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 603
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 604
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 605
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 606
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 607
Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 608
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 609
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 613
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 614
Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 615
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 616
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 617
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 618
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; and the 619
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 620
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating). 621
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 622
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−SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic kind of 623
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating such that either of the following 624
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 625
s∈S: 626
|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 627
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 628
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic 629
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating such that either of the 630
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 631
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 632
|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. 633
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 634
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 635
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, there’s a 636
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 637
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 638
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 639
assign to the values. 640
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 641
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 642
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 643
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 644
understandable. 645
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 646
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 647
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, 648
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 649
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 650
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 651
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 652
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 653

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

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.23)
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 654
. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic

Dimension Dominating 655
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 656
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, there’s a 657
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 658
Dominating”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the 659
labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 660
position of labels to assign to the values. 661
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. It’s redefined a 662
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 663
4 Extreme SuperHyper But As The

Unequal Dimension Dominating 664
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 665
Forms 666
Definition 4.1. (Extreme event). 667
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 668
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Any Extreme k-subset of A of V is 669
called Extreme k-event and if k = 2, then Extreme subset of A of V is called 670
Extreme event. The following expression is called Extreme probability of A. 671
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Extreme Independent). 672
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. s Extreme k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 674
called Extreme s-independent if the following expression is called Extreme 675
s-independent criteria 676
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Extreme k-events of A and B is called Extreme independent. 677
The following expression is called Extreme independent criteria 678
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Extreme Variable). 679
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Any k-function Unequal Dimension 681
Dominating like E is called Extreme k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function Unequal 682
Dimension Dominating like E is called Extreme Variable. 683
The notion of independent on Extreme Variable is likewise. 684
Definition 4.4. (Extreme Expectation). 685
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 687
number is called Extreme Expectation if the following expression is called Extreme 688
Expectation criteria 689
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Extreme Crossing). 690
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. an Extreme number is called 692
Extreme Crossing if the following expression is called Extreme Crossing criteria 693
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 694
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let m and n propose special 695
Unequal Dimension Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 696
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be an Extreme 697
random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G Extreme 698
independently with probability Unequal Dimension Dominating p := 4n/m, and set H := G[S] 699
and H := G[S]. 700
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Extreme number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 701
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
702
Theorem 4.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 703
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 704
points in the plane, and let l be the Extreme number of SuperHyperLines √ in the plane 705
passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 706
Proof. Form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet 707
P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points on the 708
SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This Extreme 709
SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Extreme crossing at most l 710
choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , or 711
3
l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and again 712
l < 32n2 /k 3 . 713
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let P be a SuperHyperSet of n 715
points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P at unit 716
SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 717
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 718
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 719
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Extreme number of 720

P n−1
these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then i = 0 ni = n 721
and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form an Extreme SuperHyperGraph H with

P
722
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs 723
between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at 724
least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 725
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 726
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 727
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph G with 728
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 729
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 730
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 731
by the Extreme Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 732
Proposition 4.9. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 733
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let X be a 734
nonnegative Extreme Variable and t a positive real number. Then 735
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. 736
Corollary 4.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 737
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be a 738
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating 739
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 740
Proof. 741
Theorem 4.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 742
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. A special 743
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 744
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. A special SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p 746
is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of 747
G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G is 748
(1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the (k + 1)choose2 pairs of 749
SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph G. 750
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 751
the indicator Extreme Variable for this Extreme Event. By equation, we have 752
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 753
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 754
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: 755
k+1
n
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 756
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 757
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 758
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 759
n → ∞. Consequently, an Extreme SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability 760
number at most k. 761
Definition 4.12. (Extreme Variance). 762
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. an Extreme k-Variable E has a 764
number is called Extreme Variance if the following expression is called Extreme 765
Variance criteria 766
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let X be an 768
Extreme Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 769
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let X be an Extreme Variable and 771
let t be a positive real number. Then 772
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
773
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be an 775
Extreme Variable in a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 776
and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 777
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Set X := Xn and t := |Ex(Xn )| in 779
Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) 780
because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| when Xn = 0. 781
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, 783
set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k for which f (k) is 784
less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 785
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. As in the proof of related Theorem, 787
the result is straightforward. 788
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 790
and 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
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 796
Definition 4.17. (Extreme Threshold). 797
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 799
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 800
Extreme Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 801
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 802
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 803
Definition 4.18. (Extreme Balanced). 804
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let F be a fixed Extreme 806
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 807
copy of F as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph is called Extreme Balanced. 808
Figure 1. The Extreme SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of

Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.3)
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let F be a 810
nonempty balanced Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 811
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 812
as an Extreme SubSuperHyperGraph. 813
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. The latter is straightforward. 815
Example 4.20. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E) 816
in the mentioned Extreme Figures in every Extreme items. 817
• On the Figure (1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme 818
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 819
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 820
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 821
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 822
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 823
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 824
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 825
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 826
C(N SHG)Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Unequal Dimension Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-Unequal Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
827

straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 830
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 831
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 832
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 833
Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme 834
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperUnequal 835
Dimension Dominating. 836

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

straightforward. 840

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

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
845


{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
849

{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
853




{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
857

{E1 , E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V11 }}.
= z 3−a .
861


{E3i+1 , E23 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 , V11 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
865

{EN SHG − {E1 , E5 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V11 }}.
= z 3−a .
869




{EN SHG − {E1 , E6 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
873

{EN SHG − {E1 , E2 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 5−a .
877


{EN SHG − {E6 , E9 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
881

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .
885




{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
889

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


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

{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
901




{E3i+1 }3i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2i+1 }5i=0 .
= z 2−a .
905

{EN SHG − {E1 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , {U2 , V2 , W2 }}.
= z 3−a .
909


{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .
913

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .


917
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 918
The all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension 919
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 920
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 921
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount 922
of them. 923
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph 924
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only 925
the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of 926
any given Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor 927
to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme 928
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in 929
an Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating, minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some 930
of them but not all of them. 931
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If

an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then
the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating is 932
at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme 933
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other 934
words, the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum 935
Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Unequal Dimension 936
Dominating in some cases but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with 937
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme 938
SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. 939
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Extreme number of type-result-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating has, the least Extreme
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme
cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating with the least Extreme 940
cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality. 941
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph 942
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 943
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nequalDimensionDominating

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nequalDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nequalDimensionDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−U nequalDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-Unequal Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the 944
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-Unequal Dimension Dominating is 945
the cardinality of 946

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

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

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

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

contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the
connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst case,
literally,
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
Is a quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower
sharp bound for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating is the cardinality of
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected
loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their
quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Unequal 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 947
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 948
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 949
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 950
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme 951
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 952
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 953
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 954
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating decorates the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this
Extreme style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the
maximum Extreme cardinality in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are
spotlight. The lower Extreme bound is to have the maximum Extreme groups of
Extreme SuperHyperVertices have perfect Extreme connections inside each of
SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this Extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but
regarding the connectedness of the used Extreme SuperHyperGraph arising from its
Extreme properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one
Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no
Extreme connection. Furthermore, the Extreme existence of one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex has no Extreme effect to talk about the Extreme R-Unequal Dimension
Dominating. Since at least two Extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the
Extreme background of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The Extreme

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices

Is an Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph as used 955
Extreme background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common 956
theme of the lower Extreme bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses 957
of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle. 958
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of

the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every Extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least
no Extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those Extreme
SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in an Extreme R-Unequal Dimension
Dominating. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an Extreme
style-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. Formally, consider

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

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to
the Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 959
Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
960
Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating =

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended
SuperHyperVertices but in an Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
R-Unequal Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-Unequal Dimension 961
Dominating is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of 962
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme 963
SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the Extreme 964
SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme 965
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating in some cases but 966
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme 967
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 968
contained in an Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. 969
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the 970
non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses 971
some issues about the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 972
remarks on the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 973
there’s distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme 974
SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 975
SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 976
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it 977
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 978
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all 979
Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating 980
where the Extreme completion of the Extreme incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, 981
literarily, an Extreme embedded R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. The SuperHyperNotions of 982
embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, 983
these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 984
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 985
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 986
Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Extreme 987
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded 988
Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. The interior types of the Extreme 989
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors 990
are only affected by the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. The common 991
connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the 992
Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices pose the 993
Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be 994
used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with 995
the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the 996
embedded Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme 997
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the 998
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Extreme 999
SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the 1000
Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the 1001
exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. 1002
The Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating with the exclusion of the exclusion of all 1003
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, 1004
the Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating with the inclusion of all Extreme 1005
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme quasi-R-Unequal 1006
Dimension Dominating. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme 1007
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge 1008
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Extreme 1009
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating minus 1010
all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, 1011
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two 1012
distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating, 1013
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1014
The main definition of the Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating has two titles. an 1015
Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme 1016
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme 1017
number, there’s an Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating with that quasi-maximum 1018
Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Extreme 1019
SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the 1020
Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the Extreme 1021
quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominatings for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme 1022
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating 1023
ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension 1024
Dominating, again and more in the operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-Unequal 1025
Dimension Dominatings acted on the all possible used formations of the Extreme 1026
SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme number. This Extreme number is 1027
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Unequal Dimension 1028
Dominatings. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1029
GExtreme Unequal Dimension Dominating be an Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperSet 1030
and an Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating. Then 1031
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme Unequal Dimension Dominating ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating is 1032
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1033
GExtreme Unequal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number
{SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1034
technical definition for the Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating . 1035
GExtreme Unequal Dimension Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme 1036
poses the upcoming expressions.

Unequal Dimension Dominating 1037

{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1038

= max zExtreme Number

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1039


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1040
GExtreme Unequal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

1041

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

1042


1043


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme 1044
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme 1045
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1046
incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme 1047
Quasi-Unequal Dimension Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Extreme 1048
Quasi-Unequal Dimension Dominating” since “Extreme Quasi-Unequal Dimension Dominating” happens 1049
“Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework 1050
and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Extreme 1051
Unequal Dimension Dominating” in an Extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1052
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the Extreme 1053
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “Extreme 1054
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-Unequal Dimension Dominating”, and “Extreme 1055
Unequal Dimension Dominating” are up. 1056
Thus, let 1057
zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1058
GExtreme Unequal Dimension Dominating be an Extreme number, an Extreme 1059
SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating and the new terms 1060
are up. 1061
GExtreme Unequal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number

[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
1062

{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1063

∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1064

And with go back to initial structure, 1065
GExtreme Unequal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

1066

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

1067


1068


Thus, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1069
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating if 1070
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some 1071
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with 1072
no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of 1073
them. 1074
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1075
are coming up. 1076
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple

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

The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme 1077
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1078
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 1079
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 1080
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1081
Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the

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

. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Dominating
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1082
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1083
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1084
instead of all given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Unequal 1085
Dimension Dominating and it’s an Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1086
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of

Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for
some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating. There isn’t only less
than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Unequal
Dimension Dominating, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1087
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1088
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1089
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1090
“Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating” 1091
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1092
Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating, 1093
is only and only
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and an Extreme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating amid those
obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating, are
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1094
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is an Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower
sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1095
all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-Unequal Dimension 1096
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1097
some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors 1098
with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any 1099
amount of them. 1100
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme 1101
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. 1102
Consider all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme 1103
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme 1104
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1105
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating with the 1106
least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume a 1107
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1108
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1109
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1110
some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-Unequal Dimension 1111
Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1112
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1114
some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme 1115
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 1116
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an Extreme R-Unequal 1117
Dimension Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such that 1118
there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1119
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1120
sometimes in the connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme 1121
SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme 1122
SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme 1123
procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1124
Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme 1125
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-Unequal Dimension Dominating, VESHE 1126
is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-Unequal Dimension 1127
Dominating, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme 1128
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled 1129
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1130
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1131
VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme 1132
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme 1133
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a 1134
connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-Unequal Dimension 1135
Dominating only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme 1136
SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1137
them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme 1138
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme 1139
SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about 1140
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1141
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Unequal Dimension Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1142
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1143
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme 1144
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating. The Extreme 1145
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1146

|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−U nequalDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−U nequalDimensionDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−U nequalDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating. The 1147
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1148

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1149
ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 1150
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1152
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1153
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme 1154
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1155
non-obvious Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating is up. The obvious simple Extreme 1156
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating is an Extreme 1157
SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme 1158
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1159

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme 1160
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 1161
Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of 1162
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1163

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Unequal Dimension 1164
. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Dominating 1165
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1166

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1167
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1168
that there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1169
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating 1170
and it’s an Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1171
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Extreme 1173
SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme 1174
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three 1175
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, 1176

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating , 1177

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Unequal Dimension 1178
, not:
Dominating 1179

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not: 1180

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme 1181
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1182
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the 1183
“Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating ” 1184
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the 1185
Extreme Unequal Dimension Dominating , 1186
is only and only 1187

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1188
5 The Extreme Departures on The Theoretical 1189
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1190
The previous Extreme approach apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme 1191
SuperHyperClasses. 1192
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1193

|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 1194
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1195
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme Super-

HyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1196
There’s a new way to redefine as 1197
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 1198
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1199
The latter is straightforward. 1200
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath 1201
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the 1202
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1203
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1204
Then 1205

|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 1206
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1207
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1208

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Extreme SuperHyperCycle 1213
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in 1214
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1215
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1216

{EN SHG − {E1 , E2 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {ViIN T ERN AL , CEN T ER}}.
= z 3−a .
Proof. Let 1217
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
1218
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
Figure 24. an Extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.7)
be a longest path taken a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). There’s 1219
a new way to redefine as 1220

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar 1224
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1225
the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1226
connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel 1227
(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1228
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1229
Then 1230

{EN SHG − {EPi , EPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
{VN SHG − {VPi , VPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
Figure 25. an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.9)
Proof. Let 1231
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
1232
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1233

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1237
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1238
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only two 1239
Figure 26. Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.11)
SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the 1240
representative in the 1241
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating taken from a connected Extreme 1242
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1243
minimum-Extreme-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any solution 1244
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Extreme Figure (26), the connected Extreme 1246
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1247
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme 1248
result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1249
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1250
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1251
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1252
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1253

{EN SHG − {EPi , EPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
{VN SHG − {VPi , VPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
Proof. Let 1254
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
1255
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 1257

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1260
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1261
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1262
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1263
the 1264
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1265
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1266
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Figure 27. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.13)
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1269
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1270
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme 1271
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme 1272
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1273
ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme 1274
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1275
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1276
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1277

|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 1278
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1279
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
Figure 28. an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions

of Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Extreme Example (16.15)
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1281

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1284
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1285
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded 1286
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating proposes some longest SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1287
Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1288
Example 5.12. In the Extreme Figure (28), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 1289
N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme 1290
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1291
of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the Extreme 1292
SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1293
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1294
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1295
For the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, 1296
and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, some general results are 1297
introduced. 1298
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is 1299
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1300
Corollary 6.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. Then 1301
Extreme SuperHyperU nequalDimensionDominating =

{theSuperHyperU nequalDimensionDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperU nequalDimensionDominating
|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperU nequalDimensionDominating. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 1302
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1303
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1304
Corollary 6.3. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of 1305
the alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and 1306
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating coincide. 1307
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme 1309
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1310
the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1312
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1313
Dominating. 1314
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 1315
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is 1316
its SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1317
Corollary 6.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, 1318
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1319
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1320
Dominating is its SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1321
Corollary 6.8. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1322
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal 1323
Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1324
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 1325
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1326
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1327
Corollary 6.10. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1328
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1329
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined 1330
if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1331
Corollary 6.11. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme 1332
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1333
Dominating is well-defined. 1334
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1335
its Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1336
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1337
Corollary 6.13. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1338
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1339
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is well-defined if 1340
and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1341
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 1342
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1343
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1344
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1345
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1346
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1347
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1348
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 1349
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1350
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1351
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1352
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1353
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1354
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1355
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1356
independent SuperHyperSet is 1357
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1358
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1359
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1360
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1361
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1362
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1363
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform 1364
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V 1365
is a maximal 1366
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1367
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1368
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1369
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1370
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1371
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1372
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1373
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1374
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1375
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1376
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1377
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1378
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1379
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1380
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1381
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1382
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1384
number of 1385
(i) : the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1386
(ii) : the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1387
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1388
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1389
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1390
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1391
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1392
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1393
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1395
(i) : the dual SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1396
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1397
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1398
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1399
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1400
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1401
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1402
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1405
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1406
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1407
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1408
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1412
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1413
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1414
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1417
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1418
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1419
is a 1420
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1424
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1425
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1426
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1429
number of 1430
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1434
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1435
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1436
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1437
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1438
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1439
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 1441
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1442
(iv) : SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1446
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1447
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1448
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1449
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 1450
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1451
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1452
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1453
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1457
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1459
Dominating. 1460
Proposition 6.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 1461
The number is 0 and the Extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 1462
setting of dual 1463
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1467
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1468
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1469
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1471
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1473
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a 1474
dual 1475
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1479
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1480
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1481
Dominating. 1482
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1484
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is 1485
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1486
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1492
Dominating. 1493
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1494
Extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 1495
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 1496
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 1497
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1498
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1499
such that 1500
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1501
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1502
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 1503
a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then 1504
(i) S is SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating set; 1505
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1506
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 1507
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1508
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1509
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 1510
connected. Then 1511
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1512
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1513
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1514
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1515
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1516
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1517
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1518
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1519
a dual SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1520
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1521
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1522
Dominating; 1523
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1524
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1525
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1526
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1527
dual SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1528
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1529
Then 1530
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1531
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1533
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1534
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1535
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1536
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1538
Then 1539
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1540
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1542
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1543
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1544
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1546
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1547
(ii) Γ = 1; 1548
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1549
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1550
Dominating. 1551
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1552
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1553
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1554
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1555
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1556
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1557
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1558
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1559
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1560
Dimension Dominating; 1561
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1562
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1563
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1564
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1566
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1567
Dimension Dominating; 1568
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1569

bnc ; 1570
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1571
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme 1573
SuperHyperStars with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1574
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1575
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1576
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1577
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1578
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1579
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1580
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1581
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1582
SuperHyperSet. Then 1583
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1584
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1585
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1586

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1587
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal 1588
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1589
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1590
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex 1591
SuperHyperSet. Then 1592
bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1593
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1594
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1595

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1596
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1597
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1598
following statements hold; 1600
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1601
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1602
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1603
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1604
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1605
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1606
following statements hold; 1608
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1609
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1610
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1611
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1612
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1613
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1614
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1615
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1616
hold; 1617
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1618
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1619
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1620
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1622
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1624
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1625
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1626
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 1627
hold; 1628
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1629
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1631
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1633
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1635
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1636
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1638
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1639
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1640
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1642
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1644
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1647
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 1649
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1650
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1651
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1653
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1655
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1656
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1658
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperUnequal 1660
Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1661
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1662
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1664
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1666
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1669
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Extreme SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperUnequal 1671
Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1672
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1673
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1675
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1677
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1680
7 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 1681
Recognition 1682
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s 1683
going on this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease 1684
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 1685
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 1686
matter of mind. The Extreme recognition of the cancer could help to find some 1687
Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease. 1688
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease. 1689
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the 1690
long-term Extreme function. 1691
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme 1692
model [it’s called Extreme SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the 1693
move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 1694
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 1695
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 1696
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Extreme SuperHyperGraph] 1697
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1698
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are 1699
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The 1700
moves and the Extreme traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between 1701
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by an Extreme 1702
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 1703
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1704
find either the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating or the Extreme 1705
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in those Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels. 1706
8 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward 1707
Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as Extreme 1708
SuperHyperModel 1709
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (29), the Extreme 1710
SuperHyperBipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1711
By using the Extreme Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Extreme 1712
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1713
Figure 29. an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1714
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme 1715
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (29), is 1716
the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1717
9 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward 1718
Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite as Extreme 1719
SuperHyperModel 1720
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (30), the Extreme 1721
SuperHyperMultipartite is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. 1722
By using the Extreme Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Extreme 1723
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1724
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous 1725
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (30), 1727
is the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1728
Figure 30. an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

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

Edges Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1729
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1730
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1731
The SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1732
Dominating are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1733
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1734
recognitions? 1735
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1736
and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating?

Dominating 1737
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1738
compute them? 1739
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1740
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating? 1741
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal 1742
do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on

Dimension Dominating 1743
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, are there else? 1744
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1745
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1746
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1747
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1748
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1749
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1750
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1751
highlighted. 1752
This research uses some approaches to make Extreme SuperHyperGraphs more 1753
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1754
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1755
definition of the Extreme SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1756
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Extreme SuperHyperGraph, the new 1757
SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, finds the convenient 1758
background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and 1759
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the 1760
regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 1761
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the 1762
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, the new SuperHyperClasses and 1763
SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on 1764
the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1765
Dominating. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way 1766
through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the 1767
notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and Extreme SuperHyperGraph are the 1768
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1769
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1770
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1771
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1772
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1773
formally called “ SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” in the themes of jargons and 1774
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 1775
figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating
3. Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1776
avenues for this research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1777
12 Extreme SuperHyperDuality But As The 1778
Forms 1780
Definition 12.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperDuality). 1781
Assume an Extreme SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider an 1782
Extreme SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then either 1783
V 0 or E 0 is called 1784
0 0
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E such 1785
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1786
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 such 1787
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1788
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1789
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1790
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 such 1791
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 1792
(v) Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1793
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1794
rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1795
Definition 12.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperDuality). 1796
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 1798
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1799
e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1800
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for an 1801
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 1802
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1803
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1804
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1806
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, 1807
Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme v-SuperHyperDuality, and Extreme 1808
rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 1809
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 1810
consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1812
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1813
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1814
Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1815
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1817
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1822
Extreme coefficient; 1823
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1824
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1834
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1839
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1841
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Extreme 1842
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1848
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1849
of Extreme e-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme re-SuperHyperDuality, Extreme 1850
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1854
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1855
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1859
Extreme coefficient. 1868
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 1872
E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 1873
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1874
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, 1875
E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 1876
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1878
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme 1881
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 1882
only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, 1883
V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as 1884
an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in 1885
every given Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1886


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1929
Then 1930
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 1931
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 1935
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 1939
Then 1941
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 1942
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1950
Proposition 12.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1951
Then 1952
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 1953
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1963
Proposition 12.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1964
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1965
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1966
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 1971
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 1972
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1973
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 1974
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1975
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1976
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 1984

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 1987
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme 1988

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 1994
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 2004
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2005
Proposition 12.14. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 2006
Then, 2007
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
Extreme Cardinality
|z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2008
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Extreme Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2009
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2010

∃!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 2015
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2016
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained 2018
Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Extreme 2019
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in 2020
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperDuality. 2021
13 Extreme SuperHyperJoin But As The 2022
Forms 2024
Definition 13.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperJoin). 2025
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2029
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2030
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2031
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2032
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2033
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2034
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2035
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2036
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2037
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2038
(v) Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2039
re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2040
Definition 13.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperJoin). 2041
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2044
Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme 2045
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2046
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme 2047
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in 2048
the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2049
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2050
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2051
rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2053
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2057
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2058
Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme re-SuperHyperJoin, Extreme 2059
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2060
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2066
coefficient; 2067
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2068
coefficient; 2077
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2078
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2082
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2083
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2084
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperJoin, 2085
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2091
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2092
coefficient; 2101
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2102
coefficient. 2111
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. E1 2115
and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme 2116
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2121
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin = {V1 , V2 , V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z 3 .
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2123
every given Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2129


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2173
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperJoin =

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

.
Proof. Let 2174
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2178
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2182
Then 2184

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

.
Proof. Let 2185
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2193
Then 2195
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2196

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2206
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2209
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 2214
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2215
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2216
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2218
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2227

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2230
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2231
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2232

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2235
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2236
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2237
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2248
Then, 2250

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

.
Proof. Let 2251
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2252

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2256
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2257
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2258
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2259
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperJoin. 2264
14 Extreme SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2265
Forms 2267
Definition 14.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperPerfect). 2268
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2272
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2273
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2274
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2275
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2276
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2277
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2278
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2279
(v) Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2280
Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme 2281
rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2282
Definition 14.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperPerfect). 2283
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2286
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2288
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2292
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, 2293
rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2295
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2299
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2300
Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2301
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for an 2302
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2308
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2310
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2320
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2321
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2325
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2327
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Extreme 2328
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2329
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2334
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2335
of Extreme e-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme re-SuperHyperPerfect, Extreme 2336
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2345
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2358
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2364
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2372


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect = {V3 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 6 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Then 2416
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2417
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2421
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2425
Then 2427
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2428
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2436
Then 2438
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2439

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2449
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2452
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 2457
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2458
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2459
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2460
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2461
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2470

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2473
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme 2474

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2478
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2479
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2480
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2491
Then, 2493
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2494
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2495

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2499
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2500
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2501
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2502
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperPerfect. 2507
15 Extreme SuperHyperTotal But As The 2508
Forms 2510
Definition 15.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperTotal). 2511
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2515
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2516
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such that 2517
Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and |Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2518
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2519
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2520
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2521
Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and |Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2522
(v) Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2523
Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme 2524
rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2525
Definition 15.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperTotal). 2526
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2529
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2531
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2535
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2536
rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2538
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2542
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2543
Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme re-SuperHyperTotal, Extreme 2544
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2545
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2551
coefficient; 2552
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2553
coefficient; 2562
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2563
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 2567
in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2568
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2569
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Extreme e-SuperHyperTotal, 2570
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2576
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2577
coefficient; 2586
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2587
coefficient. 2596
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely straightforward. 2600
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2606
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
every given Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2614


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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


C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2658
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2659
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2663
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2667
Then 2669
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality .
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2670
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1

the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2678
Then 2680
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2681
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .


(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2691
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2694
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2699
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2700
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite 2703
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2712

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2715
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 2716
ESHM : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2717

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2720
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2721
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2733
Then, 2735
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Extreme Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2736
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 2737

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2741
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2742
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2743
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2744
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperTotal. 2749
16 Extreme SuperHyperConnected But As The 2750
Forms 2752
Definition 16.1. (Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperConnected). 2753
(i) Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2757
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2758
(ii) Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2759
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2760
|Ei |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Ej |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2761
(iii) Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2762
such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2763
(iv) Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , 2764
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2765
|Vi |Extreme CARDINALITY = |Vj |Extreme CARDINALITY ; 2766
(v) Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2767
e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2768
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2769
Definition 16.2. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnected). 2770
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2773
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) 2775
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2778
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2780
(ii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2781
for a Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 2784
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2785
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2786
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2787
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2788
of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2789
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2796
(iv) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2798
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2799
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2808
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2813
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2815
(vi) a Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Extreme 2816
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of 2820
high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2821
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2822
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2823
either of Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, 2824
Extreme v-SuperHyperConnected, and Extreme rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2825
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2826
(viii) a Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2833
Extreme e-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme re-SuperHyperConnected, Extreme 2834
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Extreme Algorithm is Extremely 2846
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 2847
a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in 2848
the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme 2849
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme 2850
isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme 2851
endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given 2852
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2853
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but 2856
E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme 2857
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 2858
The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no 2859
SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2861


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected = {V3 , V10 , V6 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= 3 × 6z 3 .
Then 2925
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2926
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 2930
Extreme SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 2934
Then 2936
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2937
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality −1 .

The term “EXTERNAL” implies |N (ViEXT ERN AL )|
≥ |N (Vj )| where Vj is 2940
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (24), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2945
Then 2947
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2948
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

(25), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2958
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2961
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2966
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2967
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2970
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2971
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 2979
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Extreme Cardinality
Proof. Let 2982
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme 2983

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 2987
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 2988
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (27), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3000
Then, 3002
∗
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Extreme V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3003
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel 3004

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3008
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3009
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3010
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3011
the Extreme SuperHyperModel (28), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnected. 3017
17 Background 3018
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3019
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3020
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3021
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3022
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3023
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3024
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3025
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3026
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3027
with pages 32-55. 3028
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3029
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3030
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3031
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3032
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3033
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3034
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3035
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3036
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3037
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3038
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3039
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3040
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3041
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3042
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3043
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3044
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3045
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3046
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3047
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3048
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3049
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3050
SuperHyperNumbers. 3051
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3052
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction to Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3053
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Beyond ” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2023). 3054
In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and 3055
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using 3056
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3057
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and 3058
Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques 3059
Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 6 with pages 221-307. The research article studies 3060
deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 3061
It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and 3062
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is 3063
titled “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super 3064
Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper 3065
Classes” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research article, a novel approach 3066
is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on 3067
fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of 3068
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3069
entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3070
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3071
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3073
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3074
SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled 3075
“neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the 3076
setting of some classes related to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry 3077
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3078
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without 3079
using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3080
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer 3081
Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in 3082
choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3084
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background. The research 3085
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3086
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3087
background. In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing 3088
Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3089
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3090
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett 3091
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3092
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3093
in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3094
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3095
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [10] by 3096
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3097
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3098
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3099
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3100
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3101
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [12] by Henry 3102
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3103
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3104
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3105
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3106
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3107
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3108
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3109
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3110
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3111
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3112
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3113
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3114
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3115
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett 3116
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3117
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3118
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3119
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3120
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3121
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3122
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3123
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3124
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [21] by 3125
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3126
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [22] by 3127
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3128
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 3129
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related 3130
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3131
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3132
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3133
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3134
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3135
Treatments” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3136
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3137
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [26] by Henry Garrett 3138
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3139
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [197] by Henry 3140
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3141
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3142
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [198] by Henry Garrett 3143
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3144
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3145
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [199] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3146
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3147
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3148
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [200] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3149
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3150
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [203] by 3151
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3152
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3153
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [204] by Henry 3154
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3155
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3156
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [207] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3157
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3158
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [210] by Henry 3159
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3160
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3161
in Ref. [211] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3162
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3163
Ref. [212] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3164
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3165
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [213] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3166
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3167
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [214] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3168
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3169
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [215] by Henry Garrett 3170
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [226] by Henry 3172
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3173
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3174
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [227] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–227], there 3175
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3176
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3177
at [228–354]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3178
readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [355, 356]. 3179
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3180
proposed as book in Ref. [355] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3181
Scholar and has more than 4728 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3182
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3183
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3184
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3185
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3186
proposed as book in Ref. [356] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3187
Scholar and has more than 5721 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3188
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3189
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3190
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3191
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3192
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3193
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3194
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3195
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3196
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–227] 3197
alongside scientific research books at [228–354]. Two popular scientific research books 3198
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic 3199
science is on [355, 356]. 3200
References 3201
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3202
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3203
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3204
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3205
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3206
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3207
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3208
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3209
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3210
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3211
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3212
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3213
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3214
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3215
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3216
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3217
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3218
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3219
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3220
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3221
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3222
5. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3223
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3224
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3225
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3226
6. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3227
SuperHyperFunction to Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3228
Neutrosophic Recognition and Beyond ”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(6) 3229
(2023) 221-307. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access- 3230
articles/neutrosophic-1failed-superhyperforcing-in-the-superhyperfunction-to- 3231
use-neutrosophic-superhypergraphs-on-cancers-neutros.pdf) 3232
7. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3233
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3234
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3235
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3236
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3237
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3238
8. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3239
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3240
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3241
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3242
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3243
9. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3244
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3245
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3246
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3247
10. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3248
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3249
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3250
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3251
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3252
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3253
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3254
12. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3255
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3256
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3257
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3258
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3259
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3260
13. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3261
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3262
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3263
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3264
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3265
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3266
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3267
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3268
15. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3269
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3270
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3271
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3272
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3273
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3274
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3275
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3276
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3277
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3278
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3279
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3281
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3282
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3283
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3284
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3285
20. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3286
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3287
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3289
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3293
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3294
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3295
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3296
23. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3297
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3298
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3299
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3300
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3301
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3302
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3303
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3304
25. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3305
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3306
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3307
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3308
26. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3309
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3310
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3311
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3312
SuperHyperGraph By Strict Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3314
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8084436). 3315
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Strict 3316
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3317
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8084420). 3318
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Strict Connective As Hyper Conceit On Super 3320
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080100). 3321
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse Strict 3322
Connective In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3323
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080068). 3324
SuperHyperGraph By Unequal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3326
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8078445). 3327
32. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Unequal 3328
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3329
SuperHyperGraph By Strict Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3332
34. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Strict 3334
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On 3338
Super Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8072171). 3339
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse 3340
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3344
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Equal 3346
SuperHyperGraph By Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3350
40. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Dimension 3352
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3353
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3356
42. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse 3358
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3362
44. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Equal 3364
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super 3368
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346). 3369
46. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 3370
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3374
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3376
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3380
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3381
50. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3382
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3383
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3384
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3386
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3387
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3388
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3389
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3390
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3392
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3394
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3395
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3398
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3399
56. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3400
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3402
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3404
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3405
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3406
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3407
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3410
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3411
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3412
60. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3413
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3414
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3415
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3416
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3418
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3419
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3421
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3424
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3427
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3430
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3431
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3433
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3436
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3438
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3439
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3442
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3445
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3448
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3449
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3451
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3454
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3455
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3457
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3460
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3463
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3466
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3469
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3472
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3473
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3475
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3476
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3478
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3479
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3481
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3484
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3487
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3488
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3490
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3493
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3494
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3495
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3497
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3498
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3500
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3501
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3502
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3503
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3506
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3509
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3510
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3512
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3513
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3515
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3518
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3521
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3524
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3527
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3530
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3533
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3536
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3539
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3541
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3542
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3543
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3545
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3548
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3549
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3550
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3552
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3554
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3557
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3560
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3561
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3563
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3564
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3566
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3567
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3568
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3569
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3570
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3572
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3575
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3578
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3579
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3581
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3584
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3586
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3588
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3590
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3592
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3593
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3596
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3598
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3599
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3602
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3604
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3606
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3608
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3610
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3611
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3614
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3615
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3617
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3620
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3622
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3624
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3626
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3627
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3629
132. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3631
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3633
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3635
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3636
134. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3637
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3638
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3639
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3641
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3642
136. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3643
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3644
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3647
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3649
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3650
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3653
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3655
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3656
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3659
142. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3661
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3663
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3665
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3666
144. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3667
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3668
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3671
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3672
146. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3673
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3674
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3677
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3678
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3679
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3680
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3683
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3684
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3685
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3686
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3689
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3690
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3691
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3692
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3695
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3696
154. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3697
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3698
155. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3700
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3701
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3704
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3705
157. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3706
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3707
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3710
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3711
159. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3712
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3713
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3716
161. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3718
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3719
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3722
163. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3724
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3725
164. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3727
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3728
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3731
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3734
167. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3736
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3737
168. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3739
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3740
169. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3742
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3743
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3744
170. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3745
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3746
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3747
171. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3748
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3749
172. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3751
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3752
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3753
173. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3754
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3755
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3756
174. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3757
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3758
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3759
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3760
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3763
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3764
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3767
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3768
177. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3769
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3771
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3772
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3775
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3776
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3779
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3780
180. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3781
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3782
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3783
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3784
181. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3785
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3786
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3787
182. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3788
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3789
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3790
183. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3791
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3792
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3793
184. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3794
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3795
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3796
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3797
185. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 3798
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 3799
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 3800
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 3801
186. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 3802
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 3803
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 3804
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3805
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 3806
187. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 3807
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 3808
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 3809
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3810
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 3811
188. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 3812
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 3813
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 3814
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 3815
189. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 3816
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3817
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 3818
190. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3819
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3820
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3822
191. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3823
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3824
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3825
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3826
192. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3827
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 3828
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 3829
193. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3830
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3831
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3832
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3833
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3834
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3835
194. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3836
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3837
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3838
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3839
195. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3840
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3841
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3842
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3843
196. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3844
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3845
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3846
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3847
197. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 3848
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 3849
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 3850
198. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 3851
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 3852
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 3853
199. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3855
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3856
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3857
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3858
200. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 3859
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 3860
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 3861
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 3862
201. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 3863
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 3864
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3865
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 3866
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3868
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3869
203. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3870
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 3871
204. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3873
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 3874
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 3875
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3880
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3884
207. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3885
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3886
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 3887
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3888
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3891
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3893
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3894
210. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3895
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3896
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3899
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3900
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3902
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3903
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3906
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3907
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3909
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3910
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3913
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3914
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3916
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3917
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 3919
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3924
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3925
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 3929
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 3930
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3933
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 3936
222. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3937
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3938
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3939
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3940
223. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3941
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3942
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3943
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 3944
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3947
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3948
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3951
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 3952
226. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3953
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3954
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3955
227. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3956
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3957
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3958
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3959
228. Henry Garrett, “Strict Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3960
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8086310). 3961
229. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Strict Connective In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3962
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080167). 3963
230. Henry Garrett, “Unequal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3964
231. Henry Garrett, “Strict Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3966
232. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3968
233. Henry Garrett, “Equal Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3970
234. Henry Garrett, “Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3972
235. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3974
236. Henry Garrett, “Equal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3976
237. Henry Garrett, “Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3978
238. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3980
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 3981
239. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3982
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 3983
240. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3984
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 3985
241. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 3986
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 3987
242. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 3988
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 3989
243. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 3990
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 3991
244. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 3992
245. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 3994
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 3995
246. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3996
247. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 3998
248. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4000
249. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4002
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 4003
250. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4004
251. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4006
252. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4008
253. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4010
254. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4012
255. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4014
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4015
256. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4016
257. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4018
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4019
258. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4020
259. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4022
260. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4024
261. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4026
262. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4028
263. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4030
264. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4032
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4033
265. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4034
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4035
266. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4036
267. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4038
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4039
268. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4040
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4041
269. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4042
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4043
270. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4044
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4045
271. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4046
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4047
272. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4048
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4049
273. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4050
274. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4052
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4053
275. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4054
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4055
276. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4056
277. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4058
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4059
278. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4060
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4061
279. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4062
280. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4064
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4065
281. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4066
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4067
282. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4068
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4069
283. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4070
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4071
284. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4072
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4073
285. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4074
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4075
286. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4076
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4077
287. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4078
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4079
288. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4080
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4081
289. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4082
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4083
290. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4084
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4085
291. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4086
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4087
292. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4088
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4089
293. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4090
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4091
294. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4092
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4093
295. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4094
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4095
296. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4096
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4097
297. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4098
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4099
298. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4100
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4101
299. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4102
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4103
300. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4104
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4105
301. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4106
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4107
302. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4108
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4109
303. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4110
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4111
304. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4112
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4113
305. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4114
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4115
306. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4116
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4117
307. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4118
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4119
308. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4120
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4121
309. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4122
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4123
310. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4124
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4125
311. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4126
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4127
312. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4128
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4129
313. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4130
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4131
314. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4132
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4133
315. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4134
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4135
316. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4136
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4137
317. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4138
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4139
318. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4140
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4141
319. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4142
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4143
320. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4144
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4145
321. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4146
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4147
322. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4148
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4149
323. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4150
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4151
324. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4152
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4153
325. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4154
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4155
326. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4156
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4157
327. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4158
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4159
328. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4160
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4161
329. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4162
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4163
330. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4164
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4165
331. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4166
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4167
332. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4168
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4169
333. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4170
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4171
334. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4172
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4173
335. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4174
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4175
336. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4176
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4177
337. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4178
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4179
338. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4180
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4181
339. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4182
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4183
340. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4184
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4185
341. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4186
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4187
342. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4188
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4189
343. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4190
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4191
344. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4192
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4193
345. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4194
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4195
346. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4196
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4197
347. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4198
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4199
348. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4200
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4201
349. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4202
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4203
350. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4204
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4205
351. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4206
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4207
352. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4208
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4209
353. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4210
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4211
354. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4212
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4213
355. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4214
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4215
356. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4216
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4217
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Unequal Dimension Dominating

Preprint · June 2023

518 PUBLICATIONS 24,095 CITATIONS

On Combinatorics View project

On Fuzzy Logic View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Unequal 2

Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With 3

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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

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

Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating criteria holds 14

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

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating criteria holds 19

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

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

Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating criteria holds 21

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

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

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

Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 24

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

Dominating. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperUnequal 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

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

Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 30

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

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

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

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

cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 41

of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 42

Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic 43

SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 44

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

Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 46

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

Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the 49

Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 50

SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 51

consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they 52

corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 54

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

Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 56

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as 59

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

SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality 61

consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 62