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

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/371906367
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

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

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8088438
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
519 PUBLICATIONS 24,257 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project
Featured Articles View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 28 June 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperGraph By Unequal Dimension Dominating As 3
Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity 4
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA 7
1 ABSTRACT 8
In this scientific research, (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 9
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
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 77
of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 78
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 “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 241
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 242
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 243
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 244
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 245
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 246
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 247
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 248
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 249
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 250
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 251
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 252
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 253
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 254
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 255
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 256
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 257
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 258
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 259
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 260
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 261
formally called “ SuperHyperUnequal 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
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 270
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 271
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 272
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 273
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, SuperHyperStar, 274
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 275
either the optimal SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating or the Neutrosophic 276
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 277
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 278
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 279
since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 280
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperUnequal 281
Dimension Dominating but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 282
Dominating. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 283
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 284
find the “ amount of SuperHyperUnequal 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 “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 293
Dominating” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the 294
research has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some 295
connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates 296
us to get some instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of 297
this research. The general results and some results about some connections are some 298
avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more 299
understandable and more clear. 300
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 301
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 302
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 303
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 304
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 305
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 306
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 307
Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, are figured out in 308
sections “ SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 309
Dimension Dominating”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in Unequal Dimension 310
Dominating to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform 311
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, 312
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, 313
titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 314
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps 315
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 316
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on 317
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter 318
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section 319
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general 320
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 321
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ 322
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating”, 323
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. 324
There are curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make 325
sense about excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the 326
description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperUnequal 327
Dimension Dominating”. The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in 328
Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 329
SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 330
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 331
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 332
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 333
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 334
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 335
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 336
3 Neutrosophic Preliminaries Of This Scientific 337
Research On the Redeemed Ways 338
In this section, the basic material in this scientific research, is referred to [Single Valued 339
Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref. [1],Definition 340
2.1,p.1), [Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.5,p.2), 341
[Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 342
2.7,p.3), [t-norm](Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the 343
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic 344
Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] (Ref. [1],Definition 5.3,p.7), and 345
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] 346
(Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are addressed 347
to Ref. [227]. 348
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this scientific research, is 349
presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 350
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.1,p.1). 351
Let X be a Unequal 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 352
+
]− 0, 1 [. 353
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [1],Definition 2.2,p.2). 354
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 355
2.5,p.2). 356
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 357
pair S = (V, E), where 358
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 359
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 360
1, 2, . . . , n); 361
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 362
V; 363
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 364
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 365
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 366
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 367
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 368
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 369
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,
IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

and FV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[FV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0
where i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 . 370
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 371
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 372
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 373
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 374
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 375
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 376
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 377
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 378
the ii0 th element of the Unequal Dimension Dominating of Neutrosophic 379
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 380
and E are crisp sets. 381
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 382
(Ref. [1],Definition 2.7,p.3). 383
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 384
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 385
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 386
characterized as follow-up items. 387
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 388
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 389
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 390
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 391
HyperEdge; 392
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 393
SuperEdge; 394
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 395
SuperHyperEdge. 396
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 397
types of general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 398
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [1], Definition 2.7, p.3). 399
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 400
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 401
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 402
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 403
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 404
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 405
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

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

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 406
Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a 407
pair S = (V, E), where 408
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 409
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 410
1, 2, . . . , n); 411
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of 412
V; 413
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 414
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 415
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 416
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 417
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 418
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 419
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic 420
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 421
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 422
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the Neutrosophic 423
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 424
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 425
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic 426
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 427
the ii0 th element of the Unequal Dimension Dominating of Neutrosophic 428
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V 429
and E are crisp sets. 430
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 431
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). The 433
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 434
(NSHV) Vi of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be 435
characterized as follow-up items. 436
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 437
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 438
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 439
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 440
HyperEdge; 441
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 442
SuperEdge; 443
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 444
SuperHyperEdge. 445
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 446
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 447
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 448
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 449
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 450
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are 451
introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable. 452
Definition 3.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 453
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 454
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 455
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 456
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 457
given SuperHyperEdges; 458
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 459
SuperHyperEdges; 460
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 461
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 462
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 463
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 464
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 465
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 466
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 467
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 468
common SuperVertex. 469
Definition 3.14. Let a pair S = (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)

S. Then a sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 470
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 471
of following conditions hold: 472
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 473
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 474
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 475
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 476
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 477
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 478
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 479
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 480
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 481
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 482
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 483
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). a

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 484
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 485
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 486
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 487
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic 488
SuperHyperPath . 489
Definition 3.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 490
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). A

Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have 492
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; 493
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; 494
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; 495
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . 496
Definition 3.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 497
(NSHE)). (Ref. [1],Definition 5.4,p.7). 498
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Consider 499
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called 500
(ix) Neutrosophic t-Connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 501
t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 502
(NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; 503
(x) Neutrosophic i-Connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 504
i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 505
(xi) Neutrosophic f-Connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic 507
f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 508
(xii) Neutrosophic Connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of 510
Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic 511
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj 512
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. 513
Definition 3.18. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 514
Dimension Dominating). 515
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V 0 = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs } and E 0 = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ez }. Then 517
either V 0 or E 0 is called 518
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if the following 519
expression is called Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 520
criteria holds 521

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

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

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

and |Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 532
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 533
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 534
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 536
Definition 3.19. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating). 537
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of Neutrosophic 540
e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 541
Dominating, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic 542
rv-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 543
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 544
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 545
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 546
SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 547
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 548
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 549
Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) 552
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 553
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 554
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic 555
SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the 556
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 557
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial 558
if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic 559
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 562
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme 563
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of 564
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 565
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; and the Extreme power is 567
corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 568
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 569
SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperUnequal 570
v-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperUnequal 572
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 573
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 574
Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 575
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; and the Neutrosophic power is 579
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 580
(v) an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 581
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 585
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the 586
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 587
Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 589
(vi) a Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if it’s either of 590
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 594
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 595
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive 596
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 597
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 598
(vii) an Extreme V-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 599
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 603
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 604
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 605
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 606
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 607
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 608
Dominating; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 609
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 610
Dimension Dominating and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 614
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the 615
Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum 616
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; and the 620
Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 621
Definition 3.20. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating). 622
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). Then 623
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 624
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating such that either of the following 625
expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 626
s∈S: 627
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 628
Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 629
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic 630
kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating such that either of the 631
following Neutrosophic expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of 632
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 633
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 634
And the Expression (3.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic 635
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 636
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, there’s a 637
need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 638
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 639
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 640
assign to the values. 641
Definition 3.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 642
S = (V, E). It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 643
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 644
more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more 645
understandable. 646
Definition 3.22. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 647
S = (V, E). There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) 648
holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, 649
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 650
SuperHyperWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, Neutrosophic 651
SuperHyperCycle, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic 652
SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 653
Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 654

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 655
. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic

Dimension Dominating 656
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating more Neutrosophicly understandable. 657
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, there’s a 658
need to “redefine” the Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 659
Dominating”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the 660
labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 661
position of labels to assign to the values. 662
Definition 3.23. Assume a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. It’s redefined a 663
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if the Table (3) holds. 664
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyper But As Unequal Dimension Dominating 665
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 666
Forms 667
Definition 4.1. (Neutrosophic event). 668
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Any Neutrosophic k-subset of A of V 670
is called Neutrosophic k-event and if k = 2, then Neutrosophic subset of A of V is 671
called Neutrosophic event. The following expression is called Neutrosophic 672
probability of A. 673
X
E(A) = E(a). (4.1)
a∈A
Definition 4.2. (Neutrosophic Independent). 674
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. s Neutrosophic k-events Ai , i ∈ I is 676
called Neutrosophic s-independent if the following expression is called 677
Neutrosophic s-independent criteria 678
Y
E(∩i∈I Ai ) = P (Ai ).
i∈I
And if s = 2, then Neutrosophic k-events of A and B is called Neutrosophic 679
independent. The following expression is called Neutrosophic independent 680
criteria 681
E(A ∩ B) = P (A)P (B). (4.2)
Definition 4.3. (Neutrosophic Variable). 682
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Any k-function Unequal Dimension 684
Dominating like E is called Neutrosophic k-Variable. If k = 2, then any 2-function 685
Unequal Dimension Dominating like E is called Neutrosophic Variable. 686
The notion of independent on Neutrosophic Variable is likewise. 687
Definition 4.4. (Neutrosophic Expectation). 688
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 690
number is called Neutrosophic Expectation if the following expression is called 691
Neutrosophic Expectation criteria 692
X
Ex(E) = E(α)P (α).
α∈V
Definition 4.5. (Neutrosophic Crossing). 693
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. A Neutrosophic number is called 695
Neutrosophic Crossing if the following expression is called Neutrosophic 696
Crossing criteria 697
Cr(S) = min{Number of Crossing in a Plane Embedding of S}.
Lemma 4.6. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 698
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let m and n 699
propose special Unequal Dimension Dominating. Then with m ≥ 4n, 700
Proof. Consider a planar embedding G of G with cr(G) crossings. Let S be a 701
Neutrosophic random k-subset of V obtained by choosing each SuperHyperVertex of G 702
Neutrosophic independently with probability Unequal Dimension Dominating p := 4n/m, and set 703
H := G[S] and H := G[S]. 704
Define random variables X, Y, Z on V as follows: X is the Neutrosophic number of

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

and E(Z) = p4 cr(G) (each crossing being defined by some SuperHyperVertices). Hence
p4 cr(G) ≥ p2 m − 3pn.
Dividing both sides by p4 , we have: 705
pm − 3n n 1 3 2
cr(G) ≥ 3
= 3 = m n .
p (4n/m) 64
706
Theorem 4.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 707
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let P be a 708
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let l be the Neutrosophic number of 709
SuperHyperLines
√ in the plane passing through at least k + 1 of these points, where 710
1 ≤ k ≤ 2 2n. Then l < 32n2 /k 3 . 711
Proof. Form a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with SuperHyperVertex 712
SuperHyperSet P whose SuperHyperEdge are the segments between consecutive points 713
on the SuperHyperLines which pass through at least k + 1 points of P. This 714
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has at least kl SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic 715
crossing at most l choose two. Thus either kl < 4n, in which case l < 4n/k ≤ 32n2 /k 3 , 716
3
or l2 /2 > l choose 2 ≥ cr(G) ≥ (kl) /64n2 by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and 717
again l < 32n2 /k 3 . 718
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let P be a 720
SuperHyperSet of n points in the plane, and let k be the number of pairs of points of P 721
at unit SuperHyperDistance. Then k < 5n4/3 . 722
Proof. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair S = (V, E). 723
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Draw a SuperHyperUnit 724
SuperHyperCircle around each SuperHyperPoint of P. Let ni be the Neutrosophic 725
number of these SuperHyperCircles passing through exactly i points of P. Then 726
i = 0n−1 ni = n and k = 21 i = 0n−1 ini . Now form a Neutrosophic

P P
727
SuperHyperGraph H with SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet P whose 728
SuperHyperEdges are the SuperHyperArcs between consecutive SuperHyperPoints on 729
the SuperHyperCircles that pass through at least three SuperHyperPoints of P. Then 730
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 731
SuperHyperEdges. Delete from H one of each SuperHyperPair of parallel 732
SuperHyperEdges, so as to obtain a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G with 733
e(G) ≥ k − n. Now cr(G) ≤ n(n − 1) because G is formed from at most n 734
SuperHyperCircles, and any two SuperHyperCircles cross at most twice. Thus either 735
3
e(G) < 4n, in which case k < 5n < 5n4/3 , or n2 > n(n − 1) ≥ cr(G) ≥ (k − n) /64n2 736
by the Neutrosophic Crossing Lemma, and k < 4n4/3 + n < 5n4/3 . 737
Proposition 4.9. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 738
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let X be a 739
nonnegative Neutrosophic Variable and t a positive real number. Then 740
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. 741
Corollary 4.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 742
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be a 743
nonnegative integer-valued variable in a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating 744
(Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If E(Xn ) → 0 as n → ∞, then P (Xn = 0) → 1 as n → ∞. 745
Proof. 746
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. A special 748
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has stability number at most d2p−1 log ne. 749
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. A special 751
SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p is up. Let G ∈ Gn,p and let S be a given SuperHyperSet of 752
k + 1 SuperHyperVertices of G, where k ∈ N. The probability that S is a stable 753
SuperHyperSet of G is (1 − p)(k+1)choose2 , this being the probability that none of the 754
(k + 1)choose2 pairs of SuperHyperVertices of S is a SuperHyperEdge of the 755
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph G. 756
Let AS denote the event that S is a stable SuperHyperSet of G, and let XS denote 757
the indicator Neutrosophic Variable for this Neutrosophic Event. By equation, we have 758
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 759
X
X= {XS : S ⊆ V, |S| = k + 1}
and so, by those, 760
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: 761
nk+1
(n choose k+1) ≤ and1 − p ≤ e−p .
(k + 1)!
This yields the following upper bound on E(X). 762
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 763
grows at least as fast as the logarithm of n, implies that E(X) → 0 as n → ∞. Because 764
X is integer-valued and nonnegative, we deduce from Corollary that P (X = 0) → 1 as 765
n → ∞. Consequently, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in Gn,p almost surely has 766
stability number at most k. 767
Definition 4.12. (Neutrosophic Variance). 768
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. A Neutrosophic k-Variable E has a 770
number is called Neutrosophic Variance if the following expression is called 771
Neutrosophic Variance criteria 772
2
V x(E) = Ex((X − Ex(X)) ).
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let X be a 774
Neutrosophic Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 775
V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) ≤ .
t2
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let X be a Neutrosophic 777
Variable and let t be a positive real number. Then 778
2
2 Ex((X − Ex(X)) ) V (X)
E(|X − Ex(X)| ≥ t) = E((X − Ex(X)) ≥ t2 ) ≤ = .
t2 t2
779
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let Xn be a 781
Neutrosophic Variable in a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating (Vn , En ), n ≥ 1. If 782
Ex(Xn ) 6= 0 and V (Xn ) << E 2 (Xn ), then 783
E(Xn = 0) → 0 as n → ∞
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Set X := Xn and 785
t := |Ex(Xn )| in Chebyshev’s Inequality, and observe that 786
E(Xn = 0) ≤ E(|Xn − Ex(Xn )| ≥ |Ex(Xn )|) because |Xn − Ex(Xn )| = |Ex(Xn )| 787
when Xn = 0. 788
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 . 790
For 0 ≤ k ≤ n, set f (k) := (n choose k)2−(k choose 2) and let k ∗ be the least value of k 791
for which f (k) is less than one. Then almost surely α(G) takes one of the three values 792
k ∗ − 2, k ∗ − 1, k ∗ . 793
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. As in the proof of related 795
Theorem, the result is straightforward. 796
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let G ∈ Gn,1/2 798
and let f and k ∗ be as defined in previous Theorem. Then either: 799
(i). f (k ∗ ) << 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 2 or k ∗ − 1, 800
or 801
(ii). f (k ∗ − 1) >> 1, in which case almost surely α(G) is equal to either k ∗ − 1 or k ∗ . 802
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. The latter is 804
straightforward. 805
Definition 4.17. (Neutrosophic Threshold). 806
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let P be a monotone property of 808
SuperHyperGraphs (one which is preserved when SuperHyperEdges are added). Then a 809
Neutrosophic Threshold for P is a function f (n) such that: 810
(i). if p << f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely does not have P, 811
(ii). if p >> f (n), then G ∈ Gn,p almost surely has P. 812
Definition 4.18. (Neutrosophic Balanced). 813
S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let F be a fixed Neutrosophic 815
SuperHyperGraph. Then there is a threshold function for the property of containing a 816
copy of F as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph is called Neutrosophic Balanced. 817
S = (V, E). Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. Let F be a 819
nonempty balanced Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph with k SuperHyperVertices and l 820
SuperHyperEdges. Then n−k/l is a threshold function for the property of containing F 821
as a Neutrosophic SubSuperHyperGraph. 822
Consider S = (V, E) is a probability Unequal Dimension Dominating. The latter is 824
Example 4.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is a pair 826
S = (V, E) in the mentioned Neutrosophic Figures in every Neutrosophic items. 827
• On the Figure (1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 828
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is 829
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 830
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 831
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 832
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, 833
E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that 834
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 835
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 836
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 837
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating =

{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Unequal Dimension Dominating =
{}.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-Unequal Dimension Dominating SuperHyperPolynomial
= 0z 0 .
838
Neutrosophicly straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic 841
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 842
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic 843
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 844
Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it 845
Figure 1. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.3)
as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 846
excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 847

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
848
Neutrosophicly straightforward. 851

{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
852




{}.
= 0z 0 .
{}.
= 0z 0 .
856

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


{Ei }22
i=12 .
= z 3−a .
{Vi , V21 }10
i=1 .
= z 3−a .
864

{EN SHG − {Ei }}.
= z 6−c .
{VN SHG − {Vi }}.
= z 7−c .
868




{E1 , E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V11 }}.
= z 3−a .
872

{E3i+1 , E23 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 , V11 }3i=0 .
= z 3−a .
876


{EN SHG − {E1 , E5 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V11 }}.
= z 3−a .
880

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

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

(16.3)

(16.3)
884

{EN SHG − {E1 , E2 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 5−a .
888

(16.3)

{EN SHG − {E6 , E9 }}.
= z 2−a .
{VN SHG − {V1 , V5 }}.
= z 3−a .
892

{E2 }.
= z 3−a .
{V1 }.
= z 5−a .
896

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
{V3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 3−a .
900

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

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
908

{E3i+2 }1i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2 , V17 , V7 , V27 }.
= z 2−a .
912

(16.3)

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E3i+1 }3i=0 .
= z 2−a .
{V2i+1 }5i=0 .
= z 2−a .
916

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

(16.3)
920

{E2 }.
= z |1−a| .
{V1 }.
= z |5−a| .
924

(16.3)

(16.3)

{E2i+3 }1i=0 .
= z 1−a .
{V1 , V10 , V6 }.
= z 4−a .
928
Proposition 4.21. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 929
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 930
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating if for any of them, and any of other 931
corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic 932
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 933
Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any 934
amount of them. 935
Proposition 4.22. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 936
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has 937
only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 938
inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating minus all Neutrosophic 939
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an 940
unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 941
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating, 942
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 943
Proposition 4.23. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
R-Unequal Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension 944
Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 945
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of 946
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 947
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 948
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating in 949
some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 950
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 951
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. 952
Proposition 4.24. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating has, the least
Neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic
cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating with the least Neutrosophic 953
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality. 954
Proposition 4.25. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 955
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, 956
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nequalDimensionDominating

= {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nequalDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nequalDimensionDominating = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−U nequalDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-Unequal Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, 957
the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-Unequal Dimension 958
Dominating is the cardinality of 959

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

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

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

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

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

connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and
their quasi-types but the SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-Unequal 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 960
least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the 961
principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the 962
condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 963
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the 964
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to 965
be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main 966
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 967
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating decorates

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

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

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

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

distinct-covers-order-amount Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
It means that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Is a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as 968
used Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case 969
and the common theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific 970
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are 971
Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle. 972
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension

Dominating is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension
Dominating but with slightly differences in the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality amid
those Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.

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

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

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

Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
{aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But with the slightly differences, 973
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
974
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating =

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

E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic
intended SuperHyperVertices but in a Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating,
Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal 975
Dimension Dominating is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic 976
SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number 977
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the 978
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic number of 979
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating 980
in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 981
maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the 982
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension 983
Dominating. 984
The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the 985
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel 986
addresses some issues about the Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially 987
delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 988
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutrosophic 989
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all 990
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 991
but this Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either 992
has the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum 993
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at 994
least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Neutrosophic 995
SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating 996
where the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus 997
it’s, literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. The 998
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In 999
the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1000
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1001
SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1002
Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic 1003
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded 1004
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. The interior types of the Neutrosophic 1005
SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of 1006
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic 1007
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1008
perfect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct 1009
types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension 1010
Dominating. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one 1011
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the 1012
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In 1013
the embedded Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating, there’s the usage of exterior 1014
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than 1015
outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One 1016
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic 1017
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement 1018
has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Neutrosophic 1019
R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. The Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating with the exclusion 1020
of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1021
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating with 1022
the inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic 1023
SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. To sum them up, in 1024
a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only 1025
one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum 1026
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given 1027
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating minus all Neutrosophic 1028
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only 1029
an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct 1030
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating, 1031
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. 1032
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating has two titles. a 1033
Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating and its corresponded quasi-maximum 1034
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For 1035
any Neutrosophic number, there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating with 1036
that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the 1037
embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic 1038
SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 1039
collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominatings for all Neutrosophic 1040
numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 1041
Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of 1042
the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating, again and more in the operations of 1043
collecting all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominatings acted on the all possible 1044
used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic 1045
number. This Neutrosophic number is 1046
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-Unequal Dimension 1047
Dominatings. Let zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and 1048
GNeutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1049
SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating. Then 1050
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating is 1051
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1052
GNeutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number
{SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1053
technical definition for the Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating. 1054
GNeutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating =

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic 1055
Unequal Dimension Dominating poses the upcoming expressions. 1056

{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1057

= max zNeutrosophic Number
[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

= max |E| | E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
And then, 1058


To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1059
GNeutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class

1060

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

1061


1062


Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 1063
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 1064
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its Neutrosophic 1065
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 1066
another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-Unequal Dimension Dominating” but, precisely, it’s the 1067
generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-Unequal Dimension Dominating” since “Neutrosophic 1068
Quasi-Unequal Dimension Dominating” happens “Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating” in a 1069
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but 1070
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension 1071
Dominating” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily 1072
background since there are some ambiguities about the Neutrosophic 1073
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, 1074
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-Unequal Dimension Dominating”, 1075
and “Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating” are up. 1076
Thus, let 1077
zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1078
GNeutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic 1079
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating and the new terms 1080
are up. 1081
GNeutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number

[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1082

{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood
∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
1083

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
1084

And with go back to initial structure, 1085
GNeutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class

1086

∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

1087


1088


Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior 1089
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-Unequal Dimension 1090
Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic 1091
SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1092
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all 1093
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1094
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations 1095
are coming up. 1096
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is

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

. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Dominating
Is an Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1097
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1098
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 1099
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic 1100
SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by 1101
Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating is related to the Neutrosophic

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

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

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

R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1102
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1103
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1104
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic 1105
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating and it’s an 1106
Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1107
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S

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

Unequal Dimension Dominating, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1108
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded 1109
to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 1110
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1111
“Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating” 1112
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1113
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating, 1114
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated

SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded
SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also
it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating amid
those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic Unequal
Dimension Dominating, are
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1115
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
is a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. In other words, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating is the
cardinality of
To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1116
The all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic 1117
quasi-R-Unequal Dimension Dominating if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 1118
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1119
mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic exception at all 1120
minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them. 1121
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 1122
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic 1123
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic 1124
SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more 1125
than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Neutrosophic 1126
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a 1127
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1128
Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic 1129
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1130
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1131
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1132
to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic 1133
R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. Since it doesn’t have 1134
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1136
to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1137
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic 1138
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 1139
it isn’t a Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic 1140
procedure such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 1141
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic 1142
SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic 1143
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1144
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the 1145
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic procedure”.]. 1146
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic 1147
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. 1148
Thus the obvious Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating, VESHE is up. The obvious 1149
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating, 1150
VESHE , is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic 1151
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Neutrosophic pairs are titled 1152
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1153
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic 1154
SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 1155
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neutrosophic 1156
SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1157
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. 1158
Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any 1159
Neutrosophic R-Unequal Dimension Dominating only contains all interior Neutrosophic 1160
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 1161
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic 1162
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in 1163
with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all 1164
of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1165
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1166
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Unequal Dimension Dominating, is up. There’s neither empty 1167
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic 1168
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple 1169
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating. The 1170
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1171

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−U nequalDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−U nequalDimensionDominating = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−U nequalDimensionDominatingSuperHyperP olynomial
= az s + bz t .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension 1172
. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

Dominating 1173
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1174

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1175
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 1176
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1178
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1179
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1180
There are not only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1181
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension 1182
Dominating is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1183
Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only 1184
two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1185
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1186

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic 1187
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1188
Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic 1189
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1190

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Unequal 1191
. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], 1193

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is an Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic 1194
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 1195
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1196
for some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic 1197
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating and it’s an 1198
Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating. Since it’s 1199
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no 1201
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and 1202
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1203
There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1204
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1205

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating , 1206

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Unequal 1207
, not:

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1209

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic 1210
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1211
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1212
“Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating ” 1213
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 1214
Neutrosophic Unequal Dimension Dominating , 1215
is only and only 1216

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
= az s + bz t .
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1217
5 The Neutrosophic Departures on The Theoretical 1218
Results Toward Theoretical Motivations 1219
The previous Neutrosophic approach apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on 1220
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 1221
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 1222
Then 1223

|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 1224
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1225
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
Figure 23. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.5)
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1226
ESHP : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1227
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 1228
corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1229
The latter is straightforward. 1230
Example 5.2. In the Figure (23), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1231
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the 1232
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1233
Proposition 5.3. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1234
Then 1235

|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 1236
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
V |EN SHG |
, E |EN SHG |
3 3
1237
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E |EN SHG | , V |EN SHG |
3 3
be a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1238
ESHC : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1239

Example 5.4. In the Figure (24), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1243
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic 1244
SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), is the Neutrosophic 1245
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1247
Then 1248

{EN SHG − {E1 , E2 }}.
= z 3−a .
{VN SHG − {ViIN T ERN AL , CEN T ER}}.
= z 3−a .
Proof. Let 1249
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
CEN T ER, E2
Figure 24. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

1250
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , CEN T ER
be a longest path taken a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 1251
There’s a new way to redefine as 1252

Example 5.6. In the Figure (25), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1256
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1257
by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic 1258
SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in 1259
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1260
Dominating. 1261
Proposition 5.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1262
Figure 25. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic Example (16.9)
ESHB : (V, E). Then 1263

{EN SHG − {EPi , EPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
{VN SHG − {VPi , VPj }i6=j }.
= z b−a .
Proof. Let 1264
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
1265
P :
E1 , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2 , V2EXT ERN AL ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
E|Pi |=minPj ∈EN SHG |Pj | , V|Pi |=minP ∈E |Pj |
j N SHG
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1266
ESHB : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1267

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1270
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1271
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only two 1272
SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the 1273
representative in the 1274
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating taken from a connected Neutrosophic 1275
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1276
minimum-Neutrosophic-of-SuperHyperPart SuperHyperEdges are attained in any 1277
solution 1278
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
Example 5.8. In the Neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected Neutrosophic 1280
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1281
featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1282
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1283
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1284
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1285
Proposition 5.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1286
ESHM : (V, E). Then 1287

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

trosophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Example
(16.11)
Proof. Let 1288
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
1289
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 1291

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1294
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on 1295
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating could be applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. 1296
Figure 27. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Example (16.13)
Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in 1297
the 1298
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest path taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1299
ESHM : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 1300
solution 1302
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
ESHM : (V, E). The latter is straightforward. 1304
Example 5.10. In the Figure (27), the connected Neutrosophic 1305
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. 1306
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic 1307
result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic 1308
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 1309
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1310
Proposition 5.11. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1311
ESHW : (V, E ∪ E ∗ ). Then, 1312

|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 1313
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1∗ ,
CEN T ER, E2∗
1314
P :
E1∗ , V1EXT ERN AL ,
E2∗ , CEN T ER
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 1316

The latter is straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1319
Dominating. Thus the notion of quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on 1320
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating could be applied. The unique embedded 1321
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating proposes some longest SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1322
Dominating excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 1323
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 1325
obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1326
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1327
ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (28), is the Neutrosophic 1328
6 The Surveys of Mathematical Sets On The 1330
Results But As The Initial Motivation 1331
For the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1332
Dominating, and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, some general results 1333
are introduced. 1334
Figure 28. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutro-

sophic Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in the Neutrosophic
Example (16.15)
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is 1335
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 1336
Corollary 6.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. Then 1337
N eutrosophic SuperHyperU nequalDimensionDominating =

{theSuperHyperU nequalDimensionDominatingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensive
SuperHyperU nequalDimensionDominating
|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperU nequalDimensionDominating. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 1338
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 1339
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1340
Corollary 6.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1341
of the alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and 1342
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating coincide. 1343
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1345
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1346
Dominating. 1347
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1349
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1350
Dominating. 1351
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1352
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1353
Dominating is its SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1354
Corollary 6.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1355
, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite,

Dominating 1356
SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic 1357
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is its SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and reversely. 1358
Corollary 6.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1359
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal 1360
Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1361
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1362
its Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1363
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1364

Dominating 1366
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating isn’t 1367
well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating isn’t well-defined. 1368
Corollary 6.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic 1369
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1370
Dominating is well-defined. 1371
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1372
Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is well-defined if and only if its 1373
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1374

Dominating 1376
SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is 1377
well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating is well-defined. 1378
Proposition 6.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1379
is 1380
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1381
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1382
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1383
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1384
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1385
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1386
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1387
∅ is 1388
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1389
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1390
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1391
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1392
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1393
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1394
Proposition 6.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1395
independent SuperHyperSet is 1396
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1397
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1398
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1399
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1400
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1401
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1402
Proposition 6.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1403
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then V 1404
is a maximal 1405
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1406
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1407
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1408
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1409
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1410
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1411
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1412
Proposition 6.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1413
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1414
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1415
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1416
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1417
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1418
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1419
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1420
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1421
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath. Then the 1423
number of 1424
(i) : the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1425
(ii) : the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1426
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1427
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1428
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1429
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1430
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1431
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1432
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1434
(i) : the dual SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1435
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1436
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1437
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1438
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1439
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1440
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1441
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1444
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1445
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1446
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1447
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1451
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1452
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1453
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1456
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1457
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1458
is a 1459
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1463
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1464
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1465
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1468
number of 1469
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1473
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1474
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1475
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1476
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1477
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1478
Proposition 6.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1480
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1481
(iv) : SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1485
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1486
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1487
Proposition 6.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1488
number is at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 1489
Proposition 6.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1490
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1491
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1492
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1496
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1498
Dominating. 1499
∅. The number is 0 and the Neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 1501
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 1502
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1506
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1507
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1508
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1510
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1512
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1513
of a dual 1514
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1518
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1519
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1520
Dominating. 1521
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1523
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is 1524
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1525
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1531
Dominating. 1532
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 1533
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1534
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1535
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1536
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1537
Proposition 6.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1538
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then 1539
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 1540
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1541
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1542
Proposition 6.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1543
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then 1544
(i) S is SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating set; 1545
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1546
Proposition 6.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1547
Then 1548
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1549
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1550
Proposition 6.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1551
which is connected. Then 1552
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1553
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1554
Proposition 6.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1555
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1556
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1557
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1558
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1559
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1560
a dual SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1561
Proposition 6.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1562
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1563
Dominating; 1564
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1565
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1566
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1567
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1568
dual SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1569
Proposition 6.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1570
Then 1571
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1572
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1574
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1575
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1576
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1577
Proposition 6.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1579
Then 1580
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1581
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1583
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1584
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1585
Proposition 6.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1587
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1588
(ii) Γ = 1; 1589
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1590
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1591
Dominating. 1592
Proposition 6.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1593
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1594
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1595
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1596
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1597
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1598
maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1599
Proposition 6.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1600
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1601
Dimension Dominating; 1602
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1603
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 1604
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1605
Proposition 6.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1607
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1608
Dimension Dominating; 1609
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1610

bnc ; 1611
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1612
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic 1614
SuperHyperStars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1615
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1616
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1617
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1618
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1619
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1620
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1621
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1622
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1623
SuperHyperSet. Then 1624
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1625
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating for N SHF; 1626
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1627
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1628
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal 1629
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1630
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1631
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1632
SuperHyperSet. Then 1633
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal 1634
Dimension Dominating for N SHF : (V, E); 1635
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1636

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1637
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=12
are only dual maximal SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1638
Dominating for N SHF : (V, E). 1639
Then following statements hold; 1641
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1642
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1643
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1644
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1645
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1646
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1647
Then following statements hold; 1649
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1650
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then S is an 1651
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1652
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1653
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, then S is a dual 1654
s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1655
Proposition 6.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1656
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1657
statements hold; 1658
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1659
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1660
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1661
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1663
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1665
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1666
Proposition 6.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1667
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1668
statements hold; 1669
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1670
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1672
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an V-SuperHyperDefensive 1674
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1676
V-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1677
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1679
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1680
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1 2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1681
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1683
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1685
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1688
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1690
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1691
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c
+ 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 1692
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1694
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 1696
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating; 1697
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1699
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1701
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1702
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1703
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1705
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1707
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1710
[V-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1712
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. Then following statements hold; 1713
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1714
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 1716
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1718
2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. 1721
7 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 1722
Neutrosophic Recognition 1723
The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure 1724
out what’s going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of 1725
this Neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 1726
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 1727
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Neutrosophic recognition of the 1728
cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this Neutrosophic disease. 1729
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease. 1730
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 1731
the long-term Neutrosophic function. 1732
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 1733
Neutrosophic model [it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 1734
Neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 1735
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 1736
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 1737
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 1738
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 1739
happened and what’s done. 1740
Figure 29. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, 1741
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic 1742
models. The moves and the Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex 1743
tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 1744
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, 1745
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, 1746
SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 1747
Dimension Dominating or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating in those 1748
Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1749
8 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps 1750
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 1751
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1752
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (29), the 1753
Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic 1754
featured. 1755
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (29) and the Table (4), the Neutrosophic 1756
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 1757
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1758
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1759
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1760
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

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

Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating
9 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps 1762
Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 1763
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1764
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (30), the 1765
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and 1766
Neutrosophic featured. 1767
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (30) and the Table (5), the Neutrosophic 1768
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1769
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in 1770
previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1771
Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic 1772
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Wondering Open Problems But As The 1774
Directions To Forming The Motivations 1775
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1776
The SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal 1777
Dimension Dominating are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1778
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1779
recognitions? 1780
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperUnequal Dimension 1781
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating?

Dominating 1782
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1783
compute them? 1784
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1785
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating? 1786
Problem 10.5. The SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and the Neutrosophic 1787
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 1788
they’re based on SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, are there else? 1789
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1790
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1791
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1792
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1793
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1794
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1795
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1796
highlighted. 1797
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1798
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1799
SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. For that sake in the second definition, the main 1800
definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 1801
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the 1802
new SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, finds the 1803
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some 1804
SuperHyperClasses and some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this 1805
research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to 1806
recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To 1807
formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating, 1808
the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general 1809
results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating and the 1810
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating. The clarifications, instances and 1811
literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature 1812
reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 1813
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 1814
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 1815
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 1816
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 1817
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 1818
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 1819
called “ SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1820
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1821
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), benefits and avenues for this
Table 6. An Overlook On This Research And Beyond

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperUnequal Dimension Dominating 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1822
research are, figured out, pointed out and spoken out. 1823
12 Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality But As The 1824
Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 1825
Forms 1826
Definition 12.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality). 1827
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1831
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 1832
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Ei ∈ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 1833
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej and 1834
|Ei |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Ej |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1835
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1836
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 1837
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality if ∀Vi ∈ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 1838
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea and 1839
|Vi |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY = |Vj |NEUTROSOPHIC CARDINALITY ; 1840
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1841
e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic 1842
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality. 1843
Definition 12.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDuality). 1844
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1847
v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and C(N SHG) for 1849
an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme 1850
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 1852
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1854
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1855
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic 1858
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic 1859
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1862
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 1863
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1864
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperDuality, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperDuality and 1865
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 1866
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1871
Extreme coefficient; 1872
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1873
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperDuality, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperDuality, 1874
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1876
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients 1877
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of 1878
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1879
Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and 1880
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1882
Neutrosophic coefficient; 1883
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1884
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; 1891
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality if it’s either of Neutrosophic 1892
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic 1896
Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality; 1899
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1900
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices 1905
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 1906
Extreme SuperHyperDuality; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 1908
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 1910
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 1916
SuperHyperDuality; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 1919
Neutrosophic coefficient. 1920
SuperHyperDuality, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 1924
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is 1925
a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 1926
Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 1927
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 1928
V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1929
has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1930
is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 1931
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality = {E4 }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality = {V4 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = 3z.
straightforward. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1934
but E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic 1935
SuperHyperDuality. 1940


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(2 × 1 × 2) + (2 × 4 × 5)z.

(1 × 1 × 2)z.

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

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



C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= 10 × 9 + 10 × 6 + 12 × 9 + 12 × 6z 2 .
Proposition 12.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2003
ESHP : (V, E). Then 2004
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Y |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z 3 .
Proof. Let 2005
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
E |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperDuality. The latter is 2009
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperDuality. 2013
Proposition 12.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2014
ESHC : (V, E). Then 2015
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality =

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

.
Proof. Let 2016
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2027
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2028
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, VjEXT ERN AL .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2038
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality

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

X X
= =( (|Pi ESHG:(V,E) |choose 2) = z 2 .
EXT ERN AL |
|VESHG:(V,E) i=|P ESHG:(V,E) |
Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 2041
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 2046
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperDuality could be applied. 2047
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2048
SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2049
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2050
solution 2053
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2060

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2063
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2064

There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2070
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2075
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperDuality. 2083
ESHW : (V, E). Then, 2085
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {E ∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)

∗
}.
= |i | Ei∗ ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|
∗
|z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperDuality SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2086
P :
...,
∗ EXT ERN AL
E|E ∗ | , V|E ∗ |Neutrosophic Cardinality +1
ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality ESHG:(V,E)
is a longest SuperHyperDuality taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2087
ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 2088

∃!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 2093
excerpt from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2094
13 Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin But As The 2101
Forms 2103
Definition 13.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin). 2104
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2108
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2109
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , 2110
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2111
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2113
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2114
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin if ∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2115
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2116
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2118
e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2119
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin. 2120
Definition 13.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperJoin). 2121
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, 2124
Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperJoin, and 2125
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 2126
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an 2127
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2128
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2131
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2132
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for a 2134
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2139
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2140
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperJoin, Neutrosophic 2141
v-SuperHyperJoin, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperJoin and C(N SHG) for an 2142
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme 2143
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2148
coefficient; 2149
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2150
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic 2153
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the 2154
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the 2155
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2156
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2159
coefficient; 2160
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2161
Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality 2164
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme 2165
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2166
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; 2168
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperJoin if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2169
Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin; 2176
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2177
Extreme SuperHyperJoin; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2185
coefficient; 2186
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2187
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2193
SuperHyperJoin; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic 2196
coefficient. 2197
SuperHyperJoin, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2201
straightforward. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but 2202
E2 is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic 2203
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, 2204
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic 2205
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no 2206
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the 2207
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic 2208
SuperHyperJoin. 2209
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 × 5 × 5z 3 .

3 × 3z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



(1 × 5 × 5) + (1 × 2 + 1)z 3 .

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

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

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


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

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

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

.
Proof. Let 2283
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperJoin. The latter is 2287
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperJoin. 2291

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

.
Proof. Let 2294
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2305
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperJoin SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 2306

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2316
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperJoin

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2319
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 2324
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2325
There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2326
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2328
ESHB : (V, E). Thus only some SuperHyperVertices and only 2329
solution 2331
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2338

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2341
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2342

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2346
may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. 2347
There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have one 2348
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2353
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperJoin. 2361

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

.
Proof. Let 2364
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3
is a longest SuperHyperJoin taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2365

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperJoin. Thus the notion of quasi 2369
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperJoin could be applied. The 2370
unique embedded SuperHyperJoin proposes some longest SuperHyperJoin excerpt from 2371
some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2372
14 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect But As The 2379
Forms 2381
Definition 14.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect). 2382
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2386
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2387
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , 2388
such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2389
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2391
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2392
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , 2393
such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2394
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2396
e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic 2397
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect. 2398
Definition 14.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperPerfect). 2399
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2402
v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and C(N SHG) for 2404
Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2407
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2409
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2410
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2417
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2418
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2419
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperPerfect, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperPerfect and 2420
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2426
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2428
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperPerfect, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperPerfect, 2429
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2434
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2437
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2439
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; 2446
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2447
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect; 2454
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2455
Extreme SuperHyperPerfect; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 2463
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2465
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2471
SuperHyperPerfect; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2474
SuperHyperPerfect, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2479
SuperHyperPerfect. 2487
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 × 4 × 4z 3 .

3 × 2z 2 .

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

3 × 3z 2 .



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

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

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

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



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

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2561
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperPerfect. The latter is 2565
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperPerfect. 2569
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect =

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

.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect SuperHyperPolynomial
Proof. Let 2572
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
3 3

Then 2583
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2584

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2594
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperPerfect

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2597
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 2602
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2603
applied. There are only two SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2604
one SuperHyperVertex as the representative in the 2605
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2606
solution 2609
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2616

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2619
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2620

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of 2624
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be 2625
applied. There are only z 0 SuperHyperParts. Thus every SuperHyperPart could have 2626
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
solution 2631
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
...,
EXT ERN AL
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect. 2639
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperPerfect = {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperPerfect = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
Proof. Let 2642

is a longest SuperHyperPerfect taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2643

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperPerfect. Thus the notion of quasi 2647
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperPerfect could be applied. The 2648
unique embedded SuperHyperPerfect proposes some longest SuperHyperPerfect excerpt 2649
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2650
15 Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal But As The 2657
Forms 2659
Definition 15.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal). 2660
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2664
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; 2665
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2666
that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2667
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2669
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; 2670
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal if ∀Vi ∈ VESHG:(V,E) , ∃!Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2671
that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; and 2672
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2674
e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2675
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal. 2676
Definition 15.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperTotal). 2677
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2680
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for an 2682
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2687
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2688
v-SuperHyperTotal, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperTotal and C(N SHG) for a 2690
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2695
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2696
Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperTotal, Neutrosophic 2697
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2704
coefficient; 2705
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2706
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2712
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2715
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2717
SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2722
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; 2724
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2725
Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal; 2732
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2733
Extreme SuperHyperTotal; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme 2741
coefficient; 2742
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of 2743
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high 2749
SuperHyperTotal; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its 2752
SuperHyperTotal, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 2757
SuperHyperTotal. 2765
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperTotal = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




4 × 3z 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
= z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2839
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperTotal. The latter is 2843
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperTotal. 2847
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal =

|E | −2
= {Ei }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal
|E | −2
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −2
Proof. Let 2850
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E |E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .
, V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1

Then 2861
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2862
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2872
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2875
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2880
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2881
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2884
solution 2887
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2894

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 2897
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic 2898

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of 2902
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be 2903
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 2909
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal. 2917
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperTotal = {Ei , Ej ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
∗
= |i(i − 1) | Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality
|z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal = {CEN T ER, Vj ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperTotal SuperHyperPolynomial =
(|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality |) choose (|VESHG:(V,E)|Neutrosophic Cardinality | − 1)
z2.
Proof. Let 2920
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei∗ , CEN T ER, Ej .

is a longest SuperHyperTotal taken from a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2921

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperTotal. Thus the notion of quasi 2925
isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperTotal could be applied. The 2926
unique embedded SuperHyperTotal proposes some longest SuperHyperTotal excerpt 2927
from some representatives. The latter is straightforward. 2928
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected But As 2935
The Extensions Excerpt From Dense And Super 2936
Forms 2937
Definition 16.1. (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 2938
SuperHyperConnected). 2939
(i) Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected if 2943
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; and ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2944
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; 2945
(ii) Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected if 2946
∀Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ E 0 , ∃Ej ∈ E 0 , such that Va ∈ Ei , Ej ; ∀Ei , Ej ∈ E 0 , such 2947
that Va 6∈ Ei , Ej ; and 2948
(iii) Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected if 2950
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such 2951
that Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; 2952
(iv) Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected if 2953
∀Vi ∈ EESHG:(V,E) \ V 0 , ∃Vj ∈ V 0 , such that Vi , Vj ∈ Ea ; ∀Vi , Vj ∈ V 0 , such that 2954
Vi , Vj 6∈ Ea ; and 2955
(v) Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2957
e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2958
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected. 2959
Definition 16.2. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnected). 2960
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2963
v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and 2965
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2966
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 2967
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme 2968
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 2970
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 2971
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 2974
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 2978
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either 2979
of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic re-SuperHyperConnected, 2980
Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and Neutrosophic 2981
rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph 2982
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme 2983
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality 2984
of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high 2985
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme 2986
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and 2987
the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; 2988
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 2989
either of Neutrosophic e-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic 2990
re-SuperHyperConnected, Neutrosophic v-SuperHyperConnected, and 2991
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 2992
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 2993
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 2994
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a 2995
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 2998
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; 2999
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3000
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3003
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality 3004
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of 3005
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form 3006
the Extreme SuperHyperConnected; 3007
(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected if it’s either of Neutrosophic 3008
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 3011
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; 3015
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3016
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for an Extreme 3019
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial 3020
contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum 3021
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme 3022
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme 3023
Extreme SuperHyperConnected; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its 3025
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s 3027
Neutrosophic rv-SuperHyperConnected and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic 3030
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial 3031
contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the 3032
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a 3033
they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected; and the Neutrosophic power is 3036
corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. 3037
SuperHyperConnected, is up. The Neutrosophic Algorithm is Neutrosophicly 3041
SuperHyperConnected. 3049
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {E4 }.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic −2
=z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3123
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

corresponded to ViEXT ERN AL in the literatures of SuperHyperConnected. The latter is 3127
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperConnected. 3131
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected =

−2
= {Ei }i=1 .
= (|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality − 1)
z Cardinality .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected
= {ViEXT ERN AL }i=1 Cardinality
.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
|E | −2
Y
= |V EXT ERN AL ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z ESHG:(V,E) Neutrosophic Cardinality
Proof. Let 3134
P :
V2EXT ERN AL , E2 ,
V3EXT ERN AL , E3 ,
...,
E|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 , V EXT ERN AL |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality −1 .

Then 3145
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3146
P : ViEXT ERN AL , Ei , CEN T ER, Ej .

the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3156
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3159
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3164
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3165
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is a longest SuperHyperConnected taken from a connected Neutrosophic 3168
solution 3171
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
SuperHyperModel (26), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3178
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnected

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

X X
EXT ERN AL |
Proof. Let 3181
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2

straightforward. Then there’s no at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3186
quasi may be up but the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3187
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
solution 3193
P :
V1EXT ERN AL , E1 ,
V2EXT ERN AL , E2
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected. 3201
∗
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected = {Ei ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial
= |i | Ei ∈ |E ∗ ESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality |z.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected = {CEN T ER ∈ VESHG:(V,E) }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic V-SuperHyperConnected SuperHyperPolynomial = z.
Proof. Let 3204
P : V EXT ERN AL i , E ∗ i , CEN T ER, Ej .
SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). There’s a new way to redefine as 3206

straightforward. Then there’s at least one SuperHyperConnected. Thus the notion of 3209
quasi isn’t up and the SuperHyperNotions based on SuperHyperConnected could be 3210
applied. The unique embedded SuperHyperConnected proposes some longest 3211
SuperHyperConnected excerpt from some representatives. The latter is 3212
17 Background 3220
There are some scientific researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 3221
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 3222
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “New Ideas In Recognition of 3223
Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot” in Ref. [1] 3224
by Henry Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3225
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms with 3226
introducing used neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published 3227
in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Current Trends in Mass Communication 3228
(CTMC)” with ISO abbreviation “Curr Trends Mass Comm” in volume 2 and issue 1 3229
with pages 32-55. 3230
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Some Super Hyper Degrees 3231
and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper 3232
Graphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett 3233
(2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 3234
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions and using vital tools 3235
in Cancer’s Treatments. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled 3236
“Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with 3237
ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 1 with 3238
pages 35-47. The research article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic 3239
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent 3240
results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 3241
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “A Research on Cancer’s 3242
Recognition and Neutrosophic Super Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and 3243
Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper Covering Versus Super separations” in Ref. [3] by Henry 3244
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3245
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental notions 3246
and using vital tools in Cancer’s Recognition. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 3247
journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3248
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3249
volume 2 and issue 3 with pages 136-148. The research article studies deeply with 3250
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3251
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3252
SuperHyperNumbers. 3253
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3254
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction to Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3255
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Beyond ” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2023). 3256
In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and 3257
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using 3258
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3259
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and 3260
Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques 3261
Comput Math” in volume 2 and issue 6 with pages 221-307. The research article studies 3262
deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 3263
It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and 3264
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is 3265
titled “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super 3266
Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper 3267
Classes” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research article, a novel approach 3268
is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on 3269
fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of 3270
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 3271
entitled “Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational 3272
Mathematics(JMTCM)” with ISO abbreviation “J Math Techniques Comput Math” in 3273
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3275
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 3276
SuperHyperNumbers. The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled 3277
“neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the 3278
setting of some classes related to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry 3279
Garrett (2023). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on 3280
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without 3281
using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 3282
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer 3283
Science Research (JCTCSR)” with ISO abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in 3284
choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the 3286
breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background. The research 3287
article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 3288
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 3289
background. In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing 3290
Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3291
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 3292
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett 3293
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 3294
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 3295
in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 3296
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3297
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [10] by 3298
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 3299
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3300
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 3301
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 3302
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 3303
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [12] by Henry 3304
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 3305
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 3306
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3307
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3308
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 3309
Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 3310
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3311
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 3312
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3313
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 3314
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3315
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed 3316
SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3317
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett 3318
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 3319
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett 3320
(2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3321
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3322
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) 3323
SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions 3324
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3325
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 3326
To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [21] by 3327
Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3328
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [22] by 3329
Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3330
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 3331
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related 3332
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3333
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With 3334
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [24] by Henry Garrett (2022), 3335
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 3336
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 3337
Treatments” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and 3338
SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 3339
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [26] by Henry Garrett 3340
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 3341
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [197] by Henry 3342
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 3343
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set 3344
and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [198] by Henry Garrett 3345
(2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s 3346
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels 3347
Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [199] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3348
“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks 3349
In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 3350
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [200] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect 3351
Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding 3352
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [203] by 3353
Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 3354
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) 3355
SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in Ref. [204] by Henry 3356
Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 3357
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 3358
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [207] by Henry Garrett (2023), 3359
“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 3360
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [210] by Henry 3361
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 3362
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 3363
in Ref. [211] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 3364
Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 3365
Ref. [212] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3366
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 3367
Recognition And Beyond ” in Ref. [213] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 3368
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 3369
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [214] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 3370
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s 3371
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [215] by Henry Garrett 3372
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 3373
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [226] by Henry 3374
Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3375
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic 3376
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [227] by Henry Garrett (2022), and [4–227], there 3377
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 3378
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph alongside scientific research books 3379
at [228–354]. Two popular scientific research books in Scribd in the terms of high 3380
readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [355, 356]. 3381
Some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3382
proposed as book in Ref. [355] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3383
Scholar and has more than 4728 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 3384
Graphs” and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book covers different types 3385
of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 3386
SuperHyperGraph theory. 3387
Also, some scientific studies and scientific researches about neutrosophic graphs, are 3388
proposed as book in Ref. [356] by Henry Garrett (2023) which is indexed by Google 3389
Scholar and has more than 5721 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” 3390
and published by Dr. Henry Garrett. This research book presents different types of 3391
notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 3392
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 3393
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 3394
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 3395
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 3396
See the seminal scientific researches [1–3]. The formalization of the notions on the 3397
framework of notions in SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic notions in 3398
SuperHyperGraphs theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–227] 3399
alongside scientific research books at [228–354]. Two popular scientific research books 3400
in Scribd in the terms of high readers, 4728 and 5721 respectively, on neutrosophic 3401
science is on [355, 356]. 3402
References 3403
1. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 3404
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Curr Trends Mass Comm 3405
2(1) (2023) 32-55. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/new- 3406
ideas-in-recognition-of-cancer-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-as-hyper- 3407
tool-on-super-toot.pdf) 3408
2. Henry Garrett, “Some Super Hyper Degrees and Co-Super Hyper Degrees on 3409
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs And Super Hyper Graphs Alongside 3410
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(1) 3411
(2023) 35-47. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/some- 3412
super-hyper-degrees-and-cosuper-hyper-degrees-on-neutrosophic-super-hyper- 3413
graphs-and-super-hyper-graphs-alongside-a.pdf) 3414
3. Henry Garrett, “A Research on Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic Super 3415
Hypergraph by Eulerian Super Hyper Cycles and Hamiltonian Sets as Hyper 3416
Covering Versus Super separations”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(3) 3417
(2023) 136-148. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/a- 3418
research-on-cancers-recognition-and-neutrosophic-super-hypergraph-by- 3419
eulerian-super-hyper-cycles-and-hamiltonian-sets-.pdf) 3420
4. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3421
SuperHyperFunction to Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3422
Neutrosophic Recognition and Beyond ”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 2(6) 3423
(2023) 221-307. (https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access- 3424
articles/neutrosophic-1failed-superhyperforcing-in-the-superhyperfunction-to- 3425
use-neutrosophic-superhypergraphs-on-cancers-neutros.pdf) 3426
5. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3427
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3428
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 2(1) (2023) 16-24. (doi: 3429
10.33140/JCTCSR.02.01.04) 3430
6. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3431
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3432
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3433
(2022) 242-263. (doi: 10.33140/JMTCM.01.03.09) 3434
7. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 3435
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 3436
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3437
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 3438
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 3439
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 3440
8. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 3441
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 3442
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 3443
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 3444
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 3445
9. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 3446
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 3447
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 3448
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 3449
10. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 3450
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 3451
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 3452
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 3453
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 3454
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3455
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 3456
12. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 3457
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 3458
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 3459
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 3460
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 3461
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 3462
13. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 3463
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 3464
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 3465
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 3466
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 3467
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 3468
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 3469
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 3470
15. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 3471
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3472
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 3473
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 3474
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3475
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3476
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3477
17. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3478
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 3479
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 3480
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3481
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3483
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 3484
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3485
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 3486
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 3487
20. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3488
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3489
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 3491
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 3495
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3496
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3497
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3498
23. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3499
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3500
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3501
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3502
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3503
24. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3504
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3505
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3506
25. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3507
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3508
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3509
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3510
26. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3511
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3512
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3513
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3514
SuperHyperGraph By Strict Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3516
Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8084436). 3517
28. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Strict 3518
Dimension Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3519
SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8084420). 3520
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Strict Connective As Hyper Conceit On Super 3522
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080100). 3523
30. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse Strict 3524
Connective In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3525
Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080068). 3526
SuperHyperGraph By Unequal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3528
Super Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8078445). 3529
32. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Unequal 3530
Connective Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3531
SuperHyperGraph By Strict Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3534
34. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Strict 3536
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On 3540
Super Dimity”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8072171). 3541
36. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Reverse 3542
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3546
38. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Equal 3548
SuperHyperGraph By Dimension Dominating As Hyper Dimple On Super 3552
40. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Dimity By Hyper Dimple Of Dimension 3554
Dominating In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3555
SuperHyperGraph By Reverse Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3558
42. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Reverse 3560
SuperHyperGraph By Equal Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On 3564
44. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Equal 3566
SuperHyperGraph By Connective Dominating As Hyper Conceit On Super 3570
Con”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8051346). 3571
46. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Con By Hyper Conceit Of Connective 3572
SuperHyperGraph By United Dominating As Hyper Ultra On Super Units”, 3576
48. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Units By Hyper Ultra Of United 3578
SuperHyperGraph By Zero Forcing As Hyper ford On Super forceps”, Zenodo 3582
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8017246). 3583
50. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super forceps By Hyper ford Of Zero Forcing In 3584
Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3585
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020128). 3586
SuperHyperGraph By Matrix-Based As Hyper mat On Super matte”, Zenodo 3588
2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978571). 3589
52. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super mat By Hyper matte Of Matrix-Based In 3590
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, 3591
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978857). 3592
SuperHyperGraph By Dominating-Edges As Hyper Dome On Super Eddy”, 3594
54. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Dome Of 3596
Dominating-Edges In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3597
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Gap As Hyper Gape On Super Gab”, Zenodo 2023, 3600
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916595). 3601
56. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gab By Hyper Gape Of Edge-Gap In 3602
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923632). 3604
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3606
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904698). 3607
58. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulous By Hyper Nebbish Of 3608
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3609
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3612
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3613
10.5281/zenodo.7904529). 3614
60. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Decompensation By Hyper Decompress Of 3615
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3616
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3617
10.5281/zenodo.7904401). 3618
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3620
Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7871026). 3621
Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3623
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3626
Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3629
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3632
Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7855661). 3633
Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3635
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3638
68. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super EULA By Hyper Eulogy Of 3640
Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3641
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3644
Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3647
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3650
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7839333). 3651
Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3653
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super 3656
EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7834229). 3657
Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3659
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3662
Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3665
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3668
Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3671
SuperHyperGraph As Hyper Tool On Super Toot”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3674
10.5281/zenodo.7812236). 3675
SuperHyperGraph By initial Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper initial Eulogy On 3677
Super initial EULA”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809365). 3678
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy-Path-Cut On Super 3680
EULA-Path-Cut”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7809358). 3681
Eulerian-Path-Cut In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3683
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian-Path-Cut As Hyper Eulogy On Super EULA”, 3686
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On 3689
Super Nebulous”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7806767). 3690
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3692
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper 3695
Decompress On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 3696
10.5281/zenodo.7804238). 3697
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With 3699
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7804228). 3700
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3702
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7799902). 3703
89. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Hammy By Hyper Hamper Of 3704
Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3705
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3708
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress 3711
On Super Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7793372). 3712
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super 3714
Hammy”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7791952). 3715
Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3717
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super 3720
Hamiltonian-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3723
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On 3726
Hamiltonian-Decomposition In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3729
SuperHyperGraph By Hamiltonian-Cut As Hyper Hamper On Super Hammy”, 3732
Hamiltonian-Cut In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3735
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3738
Trace-Neighbor In Recognition of Cancer With (Neutrosophic) 3741
102. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition And Neutrosophic 3743
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3744
Decompensation”, Zenodo 2023, (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7771831). 3745
Trace-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3747
SuperHyperGraph By Trace-Cut As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3750
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20913.25446). 3751
105. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Tract By Hyper Track Of Trace-Cut In 3752
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7764916). 3754
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3756
Edge-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 3759
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3762
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22545.10089). 3763
Edge-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3765
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29544.34564). 3766
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Cut As Hyper Edify On Super Eddy”, ResearchGate 3768
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11377.76644). 3769
111. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Eddy By Hyper Edify Of Edge-Cut In 3770
Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3771
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23750.96329). 3772
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3774
Vertex-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3777
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Decomposition As Hyper Decompress On Super 3780
Decompensation”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30212.81289). 3781
Vertex-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3783
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Cut As Hyper Vertu On Super Vertigo”, 3786
117. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Vertigo By Hyper Vertu Of Vertex-Cut In 3788
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32467.25124). 3790
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Neighbor As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3792
119. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3794
Stable-Neighbor In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3795
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Decompositions As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3798
121. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of 3800
Stable-Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3801
SuperHyperGraph By Stable-Cut As Hyper Stain On Super Stagy”, 3804
123. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Stale By Hyper Stalk Of Stable-Cut In 3806
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20170.24000). 3808
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Neighbors As Hyper Nebbish On Super Nebulous”, 3810
125. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nebulizer By Hyper Nub Of 3812
Clique-Neighbors In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3813
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Decompositions As Hyper Decompile On Super 3816
Decommission”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18780.87683). 3817
Clique- Decompositions In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3819
SuperHyperGraph By Clique-Cut As Hyper Click On Super Cliche”, 3822
129. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Cliff By Hyper Cling Of Clique-Cut In 3824
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27392.30721). 3826
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Spin On Super Spacy”, ResearchGate 3828
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.40321). 3829
SuperHyperGraph By List- Coloring As Hyper List On Super Lisle”, 3831
132. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Lith By Hyper Lite Of List-Coloring In 3833
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16356.04489). 3835
SuperHyperGraph By Space As Hyper Sparse On Super Spark ”, ResearchGate 3837
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21756.21129). 3838
134. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Solidarity By Hyper Soul Of Space In 3839
Cancer’s Recognition With (Extreme) SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, 3840
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30983.68009). 3841
SuperHyperGraph By Edge-Connectivity As Hyper Disclosure On Super 3843
Closure”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28552.29445). 3844
136. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Uniform By Hyper Deformation Of 3845
Edge-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3846
SuperHyperGraph By Vertex-Connectivity As Hyper Leak On Super Structure”, 3849
138. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super System By Hyper Explosions Of 3851
Vertex-Connectivity In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3852
SuperHyperGraph By Tree-Decomposition As Hyper Forward On Super Returns”, 3855
140. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Nodes By Hyper Moves Of 3857
Tree-Decomposition In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3858
SuperHyperGraph By Chord As Hyper Excellence On Super Excess”, 3861
142. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gap By Hyper Navigations Of Chord In 3863
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11172.14720). 3865
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination As Hyper Controller On 3867
Super Waves”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22011.80165). 3868
144. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Coincidence By Hyper Routes Of 3869
SuperHyper(i,j)-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3870
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperEdge-Domination As Hyper Reversion On 3873
Super Indirection”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10493.84962). 3874
146. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Obstacles By Hyper Model Of 3875
SuperHyperEdge-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3876
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Domination As Hyper k-Actions On Super 3879
Patterns”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19944.14086). 3880
148. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Harmony By Hyper k-Function Of 3881
SuperHyperK-Domination In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3882
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperK-Number As Hyper k-Partition On Super 3885
Layers”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33103.76968). 3886
150. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Gradient By Hyper k-Class Of 3887
SuperHyperK-Number In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3888
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperOrder As Hyper Enumerations On Super 3891
Landmarks”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35646.56641). 3892
152. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Analogous By Hyper Visions Of 3893
SuperHyperOrder In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3894
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Categories On Super 3897
Neighbors”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13973.81121). 3898
154. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Relations By Hyper Identifications Of 3899
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3900
155. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Contradiction By Hyper Detection of 3902
SuperHyperDefensive In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3903
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDimension As Hyper Distinguishing On Super 3906
Distances”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31956.88961). 3907
157. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Locations By Hyper Differing Of 3908
SuperHyperDimension In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3909
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDominating As Hyper Closing On Super 3912
Messy”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21510.45125). 3913
159. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Missing By Hyper Searching Of 3914
SuperHyperDominating In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3915
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnected As Hyper Group On Super Surge”, 3918
161. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Outbreak By Hyper Collections Of 3920
SuperHyperConnected In Cancer’s Recognition With (Neutrosophic) 3921
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperTotal As Hyper Covering On Super Infections”, 3924
163. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Extremism By Hyper Treatments Of 3926
SuperHyperTotal In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3927
164. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Isolation By Hyper Perfectness Of 3929
SuperHyperPerfect In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3930
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperPerfect As Hyper Idealism On Super Vacancy”, 3933
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperJoin As Hyper Separations On Super Sorts”, 3936
167. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super connections By Hyper disconnections Of 3938
SuperHyperJoin In Cancer’s Recognition with (Neutrosophic) 3939
168. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Mixed-Devastations By Hyper Decisions 3941
Of SuperHyperDuality In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3942
169. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3944
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperDuality As Hyper Imaginations On Super 3945
Mixed-Illustrations”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33275.80161). 3946
170. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas In Cancer’s Recognition As (Neutrosophic) 3947
SuperHyperGraph By Path SuperHyperColoring As Hyper Correction On Super 3948
Faults”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30182.50241). 3949
171. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Reflections By Hyper Rotations Of Path 3950
SuperHyperColoring In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3951
172. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Deformations On Super Chains In 3953
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By 3954
SuperHyperDensity”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13444.60806). 3955
173. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas As Hyper Ignorance By SuperHyperDensity On 3956
Super Resistances In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and Neutrosophic 3957
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16800.05123). 3958
174. Henry Garrett, “New Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3959
SuperHyperGraph By Eulerian SuperHyperCycles and Hamiltonian Sets As 3960
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-VI ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3961
10.13140/RG.2.2.29913.80482). 3962
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-V ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3965
10.13140/RG.2.2.33269.24809). 3966
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-IV ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3969
10.13140/RG.2.2.34946.96960). 3970
177. Henry Garrett, “A Research On Cancer’s Recognition and Neutrosophic 3971
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-III ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3973
10.13140/RG.2.2.14814.31040). 3974
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-II ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3977
10.13140/RG.2.2.15653.17125). 3978
Hyper Covering Versus Super separations-I ”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3981
10.13140/RG.2.2.25719.50089). 3982
180. Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme 3983
Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called 3984
SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 3985
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562). 3986
181. Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic 3987
SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super 3988
Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968). 3989
182. Henry Garrett,“Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph By 3990
the Criteria of Eulerian and Hamiltonian Type-Sets As Hyper Modified Cycles 3991
On Super Mess”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16652.59525). 3992
183. Henry Garrett,“Eulerian and Hamiltonian In Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 3993
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph On Super Interactions By Hyper Extensions 3994
of Cycles”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34583.24485). 3995
184. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Type-Results on extreme SuperHyperGirth 3996
theory and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs Toward Cancer’s extreme 3997
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010396 (doi: 3998
10.20944/preprints202301.0396.v1). 3999
185. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Warns Hyper Landmark of 4000
neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth In Super Type-Versions of Cancer’s neutrosophic 4001
Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010395 (doi: 4002
10.20944/preprints202301.0395.v1). 4003
186. Henry Garrett,“The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the 4004
Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper 4005
Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The 4006
Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 4007
10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204). 4008
187. Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing As the 4009
Entrepreneurs on Cancer’s Recognitions To Fail Forcing Style As the Super 4010
Classes With Hyper Effects In The Background of the Framework is So-Called 4011
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 4012
10.13140/RG.2.2.12818.73925). 4013
188. Henry Garrett,“Super Actions On The Types of Hyper Levels In The Sensible 4014
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth On Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and 4015
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 4016
10.13140/RG.2.2.26836.88960). 4017
189. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperGirth Approaches on the Super Challenges on the 4018
Cancer’s Recognition In the Hyper Model of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph”, 4019
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36745.93289). 4020
190. Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 4021
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 4022
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 4024
191. Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 4025
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 4026
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 4027
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 4028
192. Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 4029
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 4030
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).). 4031
193. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 4032
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 4033
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 4034
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 4035
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 4036
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 4037
194. Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 4038
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 4039
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 4040
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 4041
195. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 4042
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 4043
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 4044
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 4045
196. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 4046
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4047
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 4048
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 4049
197. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 4050
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 4051
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 4052
198. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 4053
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 4054
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 4055
199. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4057
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4058
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4059
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4060
200. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 4061
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 4062
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 4063
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 4064
201. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 4065
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 4066
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4067
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 4068
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4070
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4071
203. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4072
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 4073
204. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 4075
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 4076
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 4077
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4082
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4086
207. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4087
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4088
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4089
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4090
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4093
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4095
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4096
210. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4097
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4098
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4101
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4102
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4104
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4105
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4108
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4109
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4111
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4112
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4115
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4116
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4118
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4119
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, 4121
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4126
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4127
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 4131
2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923). 4132
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4135
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640). 4138
222. Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4139
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4140
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4141
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4142
223. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4143
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4144
in Cancer’s Treatments”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4145
10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641). 4146
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4149
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4150
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4153
10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966). 4154
226. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4155
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4156
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4157
227. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4158
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4159
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4160
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4161
228. Henry Garrett, “Strict Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4162
Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8086310). 4163
229. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Strict Connective In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4164
Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8080167). 4165
230. Henry Garrett, “Unequal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4166
231. Henry Garrett, “Strict Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4168
232. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4170
233. Henry Garrett, “Equal Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4172
234. Henry Garrett, “Dimension Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4174
235. Henry Garrett, “Reverse Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4176
236. Henry Garrett, “Equal Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4178
237. Henry Garrett, “Connective Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4180
238. Henry Garrett, “United Dominating In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4182
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8027488). 4183
239. Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4184
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8020181). 4185
240. Henry Garrett, “Matrix-Based In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4186
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7978921). 4187
241. Henry Garrett, “Collections of Math II”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4188
10.5281/zenodo.7943878). 4189
242. Henry Garrett, “Dominating-Edges In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4190
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7943871). 4191
243. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Gap In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4192
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7923786). 4193
244. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4194
245. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4196
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7904586). 4197
246. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4198
247. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4200
248. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4202
249. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4204
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7854561). 4205
250. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4206
251. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4208
252. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Type-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4210
253. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4212
254. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4214
255. Henry Garrett, “Eulerian-Path-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4216
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7812750). 4217
256. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4218
257. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. 4220
Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7810394). 4221
258. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Type-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4222
259. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4224
260. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. 4226
261. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cycle-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4228
262. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4230
263. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4232
264. Henry Garrett, “Hamiltonian-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4234
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7783791). 4235
265. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4236
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7780123). 4237
266. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4238
267. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDuality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4240
10.5281/zenodo.7637762). 4241
268. Henry Garrett, “Trace-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4242
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7766174). 4243
269. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4244
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7762232). 4245
270. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4246
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7758601). 4247
271. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4248
10.5281/zenodo.7754661). 4249
272. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4250
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7750995) . 4251
273. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4252
274. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4254
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7747236). 4255
275. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Neighbor In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4256
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7742587). 4257
276. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4258
277. Henry Garrett, “Stable-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4260
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7734719). 4261
278. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Neighbors In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4262
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7730484). 4263
279. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Decompositions In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry 4264
280. Henry Garrett, “Clique-Cut In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4266
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7722865). 4267
281. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4268
10.5281/zenodo.7713563). 4269
282. Henry Garrett, “Space In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4270
10.5281/zenodo.7709116). 4271
283. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4272
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706415). 4273
284. Henry Garrett, “Vertex-Connectivity In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4274
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7706063). 4275
285. Henry Garrett, “Tree-Decomposition In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4276
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7701906). 4277
286. Henry Garrett, “Chord In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4278
10.5281/zenodo.7700205). 4279
287. Henry Garrett, “(i,j)-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4280
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7694876). 4281
288. Henry Garrett, “Edge-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4282
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7679410). 4283
289. Henry Garrett, “K-Domination In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4284
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7675982). 4285
290. Henry Garrett, “K-Number In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4286
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7672388). 4287
291. Henry Garrett, “Order In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4288
10.5281/zenodo.7668648). 4289
292. Henry Garrett, “Coloring In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4290
10.5281/zenodo.7662810). 4291
293. Henry Garrett, “Dimension In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4292
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7659162). 4293
294. Henry Garrett, “Cancer In SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4294
10.5281/zenodo.7653233). 4295
295. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperWheel ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4296
10.5281/zenodo.7653204). 4297
296. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMultipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4298
10.5281/zenodo.7653142). 4299
297. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperBipartite”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4300
10.5281/zenodo.7653117). 4301
298. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStar ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4302
10.5281/zenodo.7653089). 4303
299. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4304
10.5281/zenodo.7651687). 4305
300. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPath”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4306
10.5281/zenodo.7651619). 4307
301. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDomination”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4308
10.5281/zenodo.7651439). 4309
302. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4310
10.5281/zenodo.7650729). 4311
303. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnected ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4312
10.5281/zenodo.7647868). 4313
304. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperTotal ”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4314
10.5281/zenodo.7647017). 4315
305. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperPerfect”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4316
10.5281/zenodo.7644894). 4317
306. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperJoin”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4318
10.5281/zenodo.7641880). 4319
307. Henry Garrett, “Path SuperHyperColoring”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4320
10.5281/zenodo.7632923). 4321
308. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDensity”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4322
10.5281/zenodo.7623459). 4323
309. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4324
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4325
310. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4326
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7606416). 4327
311. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperConnectivities”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4328
10.5281/zenodo.7606404). 4329
312. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4330
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4331
313. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4332
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4333
314. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4334
10.5281/zenodo.7580018). 4335
315. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4336
10.5281/zenodo.7579929). 4337
316. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4338
10.5281/zenodo.7563170). 4339
317. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4340
10.5281/zenodo.7563164). 4341
318. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4342
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4343
319. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4344
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4345
320. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperGirth”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4346
10.5281/zenodo.7563160). 4347
321. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4348
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7557063). 4349
322. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4350
10.5281/zenodo.7557009). 4351
323. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4352
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4353
324. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4354
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4355
325. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4356
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4357
326. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4358
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4359
327. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4360
10.5281/zenodo.7574952). 4361
328. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4362
10.5281/zenodo.7574992). 4363
329. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4364
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4365
330. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4366
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4367
331. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4368
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4369
332. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4370
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4371
333. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4372
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4373
334. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4374
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4375
335. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4376
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4377
336. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4378
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4379
337. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 4380
2023 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4381
338. Henry Garrett, “Extreme Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4382
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4383
339. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4384
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4385
340. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4386
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4387
341. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4388
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4389
342. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4390
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4391
343. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4392
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4393
344. Henry Garrett, “Overlook On SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 4394
(doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4395
345. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperMatching”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4396
10.5281/zenodo.7539484). 4397
346. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4398
10.5281/zenodo.7523390). 4399
347. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperClique”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4400
10.5281/zenodo.7523357). 4401
348. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4402
10.5281/zenodo.7504782). 4403
349. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperStable”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4404
10.5281/zenodo.7499395). 4405
350. Henry Garrett, “Failed SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4406
10.5281/zenodo.7497450). 4407
351. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperForcing”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4408
10.5281/zenodo.7494862). 4409
352. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperAlliances”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4410
10.5281/zenodo.7493845). 4411
353. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGraphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4412
10.5281/zenodo.7480110). 4413
354. Henry Garrett, “Neut. SuperHyperEdges”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4414
10.5281/zenodo.7378758). 4415
355. Henry Garrett, “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4416
10.5281/zenodo.6320305). 4417
356. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Duality”. Dr. Henry Garrett, 2023 (doi: 4418
10.5281/zenodo.6677173). 4419
View publication stats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

Preprint · June 2023

519 PUBLICATIONS 24,257 CITATIONS

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

Featured Articles View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Ideas In Recognition of Cancer And Neutrosophic 2

SuperHyperGraph By Unequal Dimension Dominating As 3

Hyper Dimple On Super Dimity 4

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · 6

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

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

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