Super Hyper Connectivities

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·
[email protected] · Manhattan, NY, USA

SuperHyperConnectivities
Ideas | Approaches | Accessibility | Availability
Dr. Henry Garrett

Report | Exposition | References | Research #22 2023
Contents
Contents iii
List of Figures v
List of Tables ix
1 Abstract 1
Bibliography 15
2 Acknowledgements 21
3 Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 23
4 New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme Recognition As Neut-

rosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called SuperHyperConnectivities 25
5 Background 33
6 Motivation and Contributions 37
7 Preliminaries 41
9 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 175
10 General Extreme Results 273
11 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme Recognition 317
12 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward Extreme SuperHyperBipartite

as Extreme SuperHyperModel 319
iii
13 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward Extreme SuperHyperMulti-

partite as Extreme SuperHyperModel 321
14 Open Problems 323
15 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 325
Bibliography 327
16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities 331
17 Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super Mechanism 333
18 ABSTRACT 335
19 Background 341
20 Motivation and Contributions 345
21 Preliminaries 349
23 Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 487
24 General Neutrosophic Results 587
25 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 631
26 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Bipartite as Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 633
27 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps Toward Neutrosophic SuperHy-

perMultipartite as Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 635
28 Open Problems 637
29 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 639
Bibliography 641
30 Books’ Contributions 645
31 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets 649
32 CV 677

List of Figures
8.1 The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

SuperHyperConnectivities in the Extreme Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8.4 The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperConnectivities in the
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
v

Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Example (8.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
9.1 an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme SuperHyperCon-

nectivities in the Example (9.0.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
9.2 an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities in the Extreme Example (9.0.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
9.3 an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme SuperHy-
perConnectivities in the Extreme Example (9.0.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.4 an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities in the Example (9.0.9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
9.5 an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme SuperHy-
perConnectivities in the Example (9.0.11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
9.6 an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme
12.1 an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme SuperHyper-

Connectivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
13.1 an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme SuperHy-

perConnectivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
22.1 The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (9.0.1) . . . . . 360
22.2 The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (9.0.1) . . . . . 361
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

22.10The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperConnectivities in the

Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
Example (9.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
23.1 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHy-

perConnectivities in the Example (10.0.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
23.2 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (10.0.5) . . . . 520
23.3 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (10.0.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
23.4 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutrosophic
Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Example (10.0.9) . . . . . . 552
23.5 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities in the Example (10.0.11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
23.6 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (10.0.13) . . 585
26.1 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnectivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633
27.1 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnectivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
31.1 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650

31.2 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651

31.3 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets #69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652
31.10“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets #67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658

List of Tables
7.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges

Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition (8.0.22) . 49
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (8.0.21) . 49

Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

Belong to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
15.1 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research . . . . . . . . . 326

Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (8.0.21) . 357

Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634

Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636
29.1 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research . . . . . . . . . 640
ix
CHAPTER 1
Abstract
In this research book, there are some research chapters on “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” and
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” about some researches on SuperHyperConnectivities by
two (Extreme/Neutrosophic) notions, namely, Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities. With researches on the basic properties, the research book starts to
make Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities theory
more (Extremely/Neutrosophicly) understandable.
In the some chapters, in some researches, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNo-
tions, namely, a SuperHyperConnectivities and Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities . Two
different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and
well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the
elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with
other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are
followed by the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The
“Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing
and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are
different types of them. Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the
group of cells. These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them
all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. Thus these
complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and
“Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected
in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that
there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have
a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG)
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a Neutro-
1
sophic SuperHyperEdge; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG)

for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial
contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of
high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHy-
perEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and
the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyper-
Polynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number
of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic
cardinality Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
not to in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the Neutrosophic power is
Neutrosophicly corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex
not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in
a SuperHyperEdge; a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s
no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains
the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high
cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge
and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is
corresponded to its coefficient; a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic
cardinality Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
not to in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the Neutrosophic power is
Neutrosophicly corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then
δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality such
that either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeigh-
bors of s ∈ S : there are |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The first Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression,
holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a
maximal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such
that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyper-
Neighbors of s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ; and
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a
Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is a Neutrosophic
δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a SuperHyperConnectivities
. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperConnectivities more understand-

able. For the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine”
the notion of a “SuperHyperConnectivities ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of
the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s redefined a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of
Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “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”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next
SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s the main. It’ll be
disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s
a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperConnectivities, then it’s officially
called a “SuperHyperConnectivities” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperConnectivities . There are
some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperConnectivities
”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperConnectivities . For the sake
of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of
a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities ”.
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters
of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the
values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”
if the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperConnectivities are redefined to a “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” version
of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperConnectivities more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyper-
Path, SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite,
and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCon-
nectivities”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A
SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” where it’s the strongest [the
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperConnectivities amid the maximum value amid
all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperConnectivities .] SuperHyperConnectivities . A graph is
a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges
are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses
as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s only one SuperVertex
as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex
as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets,
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate
sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with

any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between
“specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Some-
times, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more
precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the
future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the
definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move
of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and
neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to
choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception
on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known
and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and
the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could
be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar,
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the
longest SuperHyperConnectivities or the strongest SuperHyperConnectivities in those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperConnectivities, called SuperHyperConnectivities,
and the strongest SuperHyperConnectivities, called Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, some
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths
have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t any formation of
any SuperHyperConnectivities but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperConnectivities.
It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnectivities, Cancer’s Recognition
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45
In the some chapters, in some researches, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion,
namely, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities . Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions
are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform,
and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review
is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of
this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and
the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are figured out
to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Neutrosophic
Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and
upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There
are different types of them. Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled
by the group of cells. These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations
amid them all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and

“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research
on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to
pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions and some problems.
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then a “SuperHyperConnectivities” C(N SHG) for
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that
there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s
no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−SuperHyperConnectivities” is a
maximal SuperHyperConnectivities of SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that
either of the following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors
of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first
Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnectivities” is a maximal Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such that
either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of
s ∈ S : |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 first Expression, holds if S is a “Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”.
And the second Expression, holds if S is a “Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to
define “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperConnectivities . Since there’s more ways to get type-
results to make SuperHyperConnectivities more understandable. For the sake of having Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “SuperHyperConnectivities ”.
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of
the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values.
Assume a SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s redefined Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if the
mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges,
and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The
Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVer-
tices&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”. To get structural examples
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on
SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous
definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities
until the SuperHyperConnectivities, then it’s officially called “SuperHyperConnectivities” but
otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperConnectivities . There are some instances about the clarifications for
the main definition titled “SuperHyperConnectivities ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and
discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on
SuperHyperConnectivities . For the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s
a need to “redefine” the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the
labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels
to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And SuperHyperConnectivities are redefined
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutro-

sophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results
to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds.
Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, Super-
HyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”,
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” where it’s the strongest
[the maximum Neutrosophic value from all SuperHyperConnectivities amid the maximum value amid
all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperConnectivities .] SuperHyperConnectivities . A graph is
SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are
the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows.
It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges
with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection
amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection
amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The
SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In
this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific
group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which
in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation
will be based on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the definitions will
be introduced in redeemed ways. The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the long-term
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move
of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and
neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to
choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception
on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known
and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and
the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could
be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar,
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the
longest SuperHyperConnectivities or the strongest SuperHyperConnectivities in those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperConnectivities, called SuperHyperConnectivities,
and the strongest SuperHyperConnectivities, called Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, some
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths
have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t any formation of

any SuperHyperConnectivities but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperConnectivities.

It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, Cancer’s
Neutrosophic Recognition
The following references are cited by chapters.
[Ref137] Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme Recognition
As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562).
[Ref136] Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

By SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super Mechanism”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968).
The links to the contributions of this research book are listed below. Article #137
New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme Recognition As Neutrosophic Super-

HyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called SuperHyperConnectivities
@WordPress: -
@ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368275564
@Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/623818360
@academia: https://www.academia.edu/96303538
@ZENODO_ORG: https://zenodo.org/record/7606366 Article #136
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperCon-

nectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super Mechanism
@WordPress: -
@ZENODO_ORG: https://zenodo.org/record/7601136

Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in the follow-
ing by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more than 2479 readers in
Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book
covers different types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph theory.
[Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: Educational
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-725-6
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf).
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in the
following by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more than 3192 read-
ers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE
- Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book
presents different types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting
of duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, simultaneously. It’s
smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s done in this research book which is
popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. [Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”,
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 (http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf).



Background
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are some
discussion and literature reviews about them.
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in
Ref. [HG1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the research on neutrosophic Super-
HyperGraphs. This research article is published on the journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems”
in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this research article, different types of notions like dom-
inating, resolving, coloring, Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian)
neutrosophic path, zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number,
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, matching number,
matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing
neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global-
offensive alliance, t-offensive alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful
alliance are defined in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some results are
applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus this research
article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the majority of notions.
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic
degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic hyper-
graphs” in Ref. [HG2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research article, a novel approach is
implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms
without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious
and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)”
with abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. The
research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background.
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper
Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutro-
sophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [HG3] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research article, a
novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based
on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathemat-
ical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math Techniques
Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article studies deeply with
choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough
toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers.
In some articles are titled “0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving
and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref.
[HG4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”
in Ref. [HG5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) Supe-
rHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect
Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [HG7] by Henry
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “The Shift Paradigm To
Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition
By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”
in Ref. [HG9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In
The Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recog-
nition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG10] by Henry Garrett (2022),
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recogni-
tion Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG11]
by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances
Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG12] by Henry
Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutro-
sophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style
SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [HG14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [HG15] by Henry Garrett (2022),
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutro-
sophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in Ref. [HG16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [HG12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions
on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Re-
cognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG17] by Henry Garrett (2022),
“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act
on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [HG18] by Henry Garrett
(2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) Su-
perHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [HG19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet
On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Re-
cognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [HG20] by Henry Garrett
(2022), “SuperHyperCycle on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Su-
perHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [HG21] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Some
SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and Super-
HyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [HG22] by Henry Garrett
(2022), “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [HG23]
by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG24] by Henry Garrett
(2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s Extreme Recog-
nition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG25] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique
Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks
By SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG26] by Henry
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s
Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG27] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Perfect Directions

Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique

on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating
Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s
Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in
Ref. [HG29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions
titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the
Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG30] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the
Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-
Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [HG32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHy-
perGraphs” in Ref. [HG33] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing
in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic
Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. [HG34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed Supe-
rHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG35]
by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref.
[HG36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [HG37] by Henry Garrett
(2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based
on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref.
[HG38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNo-
tions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph.
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in Ref. [HG39]
by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more than 2732 readers in
Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educa-
tional Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research
book covers different types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in Ref. [HG40]
Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE -
Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book
smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s done in this research book which
is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd.


Bibliography
[1] Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Graph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 10.5281/zen-
odo.6456413). (http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). (ht-
tps://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss_journal/vol49/iss1/34).
[2] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic
Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends
Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14.
[3] Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super
Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”,
J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) (2022) 242-263.
[4] Garrett, Henry. “0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving
and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.”
CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN
European Organization for Nuclear Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. ht-
tps://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942
[5] Garrett, Henry. “0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs.” CERN
European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 2022. CERN European
Organization for Nuclear Research, https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. ht-
tps://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724
[6] Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1).
[7] Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Po-
sitions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic Super-
HyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/pre-
prints202301.0282.v1).
[8] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recogni-
tion On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/pre-
prints202301.0267.v1).
15
[9] Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells
Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based
on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1).
[10] Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Ap-
plied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/pre-
prints202301.0262.v1).
[11] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neut-
rosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”,
[12] Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224,
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1).
[13] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/pre-
prints202301.0105.v1).
[14] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic Super-
HyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints
2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1).
[15] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To
Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”,
Preprints 2023, 2023010044
[16] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- Su-
perHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010043 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1).
[17] Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1).
[19] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2022, 2022120549 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1).
[20] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and Super-
HyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”,

[21] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperCycle on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1).
[22] Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”,
[23] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic Super-
HyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”,
[24] Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Mon-
itor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767).
[25] Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s Ex-
treme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680).
[26] Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named
[27] Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243).
[28] Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition For-
warding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30092.80004).
[29] Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and Sub-
Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849).
[30] Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968).
[31] Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyper-
Model Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007).
[32] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803).
[33] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123).


ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287).
[35] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And
[37] Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244).
[38] Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic
Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
(NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160).
[39] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: Educational
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States. ISBN: 979-1-
59973-725-6 (http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf).
[40] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing
House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf).

#Latest_Updates
#The_Links
| Book #97
|Title: SuperHyperConnectivities
| Available at @WordPress @Preprints_org @ResearchGate @Scribd @academia @ZENODO_ORG

@Twitter @LinkedIn @Amazon @googlebooks @GooglePlay
| Publisher | –
| ISBN | –
| Print length | –
#Latest_Updates
#The_Links
| @ResearchGate: -
| @academia: -
| @ZENODO_ORG: -
| @googlebooks: -
| @GooglePlay: -
| @WordPress: -

SuperHyperConnectivities (Published Version)
The Link:
Posted by Dr. Henry Garrett
January -, 2023
Posted in 0097 | SuperHyperConnectivities
Tags:
Applications, Applied Mathematics, Applied Research, Cancer, Cancer’s Recognitions, Combin-
atorics, Edge, Edges, Graph Theory, Graphs, Latest Research, Literature Reviews, Modeling,
Neutrosophic Graph, Neutrosophic Graph Theory, Neutrosophic Science, Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Classes, Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Theory, neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, Open Problems, Open Questions,
Problems, Pure Math, Pure Mathematics, Questions, Real-World Applications, Recent Re-
search, Recognitions, Research, Research Article, Research Articles, Research Book, Research
Chapter, Research Chapters, Review, SuperHyperClasses, SuperHyperEdges, SuperHyperGraph,
SuperHyperGraph Theory, SuperHyperGraphs, SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperModeling,
SuperHyperVertices, Theoretical Research, Vertex, Vertices

CHAPTER 2
Acknowledgements
The author is going to express his gratitude and his appreciation about the brains and their hands
which are showing the importance of words in the framework of every wisdom, knowledge, arts, and
emotions which are streaming in the lines from the words, notions, ideas and approaches to have
the material and the contents which are only the way to flourish the minds, to grow the notions, to
advance the ways and to make the stable ways to be amid events and storms of minds for surviving
from them and making the outstanding experiences about the tools and the ideas to be on the star
lines of words and shining like stars, forever.
21
CHAPTER 3
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities
The following sections are cited as follows, which is my 135th manuscript and I use prefix 135 as
number before any labelling for items.
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562).

@WordPress: -
Henry Garrett, “New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme Recognition As Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph By Hyper Plans Called SuperHyperConnectivities”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562).
“#137th Article”
January 2023
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562
License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Print length: 273 pages
Project: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs
Available at @WordPress @ResearchGate @Scribd @academia @ZENODOO RG@Amazon@googlebooks@GoogleP lay
23
CHAPTER 4
New Ideas On Super Disruptions In

Cancer’s Extreme Recognition As
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By Hyper
Plans Called SuperHyperConnectivities
25
ABSTRACT
In this research, [Extreme Strength of the Extreme SuperHyperPaths] Assume a Neutro-

sophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). an Extreme SuperHy-
perPath (NSHP) from Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Extreme SuperHyperVertex
(NSHV) Vs is sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Extreme SuperHyperEdges
(NSHE) V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs , have Extreme t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; Ex-
treme i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ; Extreme f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; Extreme strength
(min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 . [Different Extreme Types of Extreme SuperHyperEdges
(NSHE)] Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).
Consider an Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called Extreme
t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Extreme t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from
Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s;
Extreme i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Extreme i-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP)
from Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where
1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Extreme f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Extreme f-strength of Super-
HyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Extreme SuperHyperVertex
(NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Extreme connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number
of Extreme strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to
Extreme SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. ((Extreme) SuperHyperConnectivities).
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider an
Extreme SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyper-
Connectivities if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective,
and Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of
the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; an
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective,
Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Graph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; an
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Extreme t-connective,
Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for an Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the
27
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the
Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; an
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Extreme t-connective,
Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for a Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the
Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the
Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive
Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; an
Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective,
Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and C(N SHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Graph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of
high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence
of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Extreme t-
connective, Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective and C(N SHG)
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecut-
ive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s
either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective
and C(N SHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHy-
perPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded
to its Extreme coefficient; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s
either of Extreme t-connective, Extreme i-connective, Extreme f-connective, and Extreme connective
and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHy-
perPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum
Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high
Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded
to its Extreme coefficient. In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions,
namely, a SuperHyperConnectivities and Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Two different types of
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion,
SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The
literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the
significancy of this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHy-
perNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications
are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s
Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and
upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are

different types of them. Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the
group of cells. These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them
all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. Thus these
complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and
“Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected
in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an Extreme
a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG) for a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality Extreme SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no
Extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Extreme Super-
HyperEdge to have an Extreme SuperHyperVertex in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge; an Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the
number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges
such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge
to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coeffi-
cient; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme
coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme Su-
perHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality Extreme SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no Extreme
SuperHyperVertex not to in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge
to have an Extreme SuperHyperVertex in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge and the Extreme power
is Extremely corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not
to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHy-
perEdge; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high
Extreme cardinality Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex
not to in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an Extreme
SuperHyperVertex in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities Supe-
rHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality
of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex
not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a Super-
HyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the
Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number
of the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinal-
ity Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex not to in an
Extreme SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have an Extreme Super-
HyperVertex in an Extreme SuperHyperEdge and the Extreme power is Extremely corresponded

to its Extreme coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a

maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality such that either of the following
expressions hold for the (Extreme) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : there are
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, holds if
S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive;
an Extreme δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a maximal Extreme of SuperHyperVertices with
maximum Extreme cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the Extreme car-
dinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: |S ∩N (s)|Extreme > |S ∩(V \N (s))|Extreme +δ;
and |S ∩ N (s)|Extreme < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|Extreme + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is
an Extreme δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is an Extreme
δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Extreme” version of a SuperHyperConnectivities
. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperConnectivities more under-
standable. For the sake of having Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine”
the notion of a “SuperHyperConnectivities ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges
the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s redefined
an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of
Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “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”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next
SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s the main. It’ll be
disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s
a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperConnectivities, then it’s officially
called a “SuperHyperConnectivities” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperConnectivities . There are
some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperConnectivities
”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the
disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperConnectivities . For the sake of
having an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities” and a “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities ”. The SuperHyperVertices
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And
a SuperHyperConnectivities are redefined to a “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” if the intended
Table holds. It’s useful to define “Extreme” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways
to get Extreme type-results to make an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities more understandable.
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some Extreme SuperHyperClasses if the
intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, Super-
HyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “Extreme SuperHyperPath”,
“Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Extreme SuperHyperStar”, “Extreme SuperHyperBipartite”,
“Extreme SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Extreme SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds.
A SuperHyperGraph has a “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” where it’s the strongest [the max-
imum Extreme value from all the SuperHyperConnectivities amid the maximum value amid all
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperConnectivities .] SuperHyperConnectivities . A graph is a

SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges

are the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses
as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given Su-
perHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s only one SuperVertex
as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex
as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets,
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate
sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with
any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between
“specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Some-
times, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more
precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Extreme”. In the
future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the
definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the
long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality
about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another
model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve
got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of
the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by
an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite,
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperCon-
nectivities or the strongest SuperHyperConnectivities in those Extreme SuperHyperModels. For
the longest SuperHyperConnectivities, called SuperHyperConnectivities, and the strongest SuperHy-
perConnectivities, called Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, some general results are introduced.
Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but
it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a
SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperConnectivities but literarily,
it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperConnectivities. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A
basic familiarity with Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities theory, SuperHyperGraphs theory, and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, (Extreme) SuperHyperConnectivities, Cancer’s
Extreme Recognition

CHAPTER 5
Background
33

(2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Su-


See the seminal researches [HG1; HG2; HG3]. The formalization of the notions on the framework
of Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities theory, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities theory, and
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [HG4; HG5; HG6; HG7; HG8; HG9; HG10;
HG11; HG12; HG13; HG14; HG15; HG16; HG17; HG18; HG19; HG20; HG21; HG22;
HG35; HG36; HG37; HG38]. Two popular research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers,
2638 and 3363 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [HG39; HG40].

CHAPTER 6
Motivation and Contributions
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try to bring the
motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some attacks from the situation
which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing
situations which in that, the cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals
have excessive labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In
the embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more proper analysis
on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are officially called “SuperHyperGraphs”
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of
cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” and the relations between the individuals of cells and
the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do
research on this SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations
get worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond them.
There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality, for
any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise data, and uncertain analysis.
The latter model could be considered on the previous SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel.
It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is
the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case
of this disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The
cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter
of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease. The
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s
Recognition” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been
happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of
the cancer in the forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture
are formally called “ SuperHyperConnectivities” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the
SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region
has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from
the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of
the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic
37
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are
some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general models.
The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of
cells could be fantasized by an Extreme Extreme SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperConnectivities,
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to
find either the optimal SuperHyperConnectivities or the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in those
Extreme SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar,
all possible Extreme SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperConnectivities.
There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperConnectivities but literarily, it’s the deformation of
any SuperHyperConnectivities. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form.
Question 6.0.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to find the “
amount of SuperHyperConnectivities” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells based on the
fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of SuperHyperConnectivities” based on
the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells?
Question 6.0.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms of these
messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated?
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled “SuperHyperGraphs”.
Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then
the research has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections
amid this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances
and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and
some results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear.
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic definitions to clarify
about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial definitions about SuperHyperGraphs
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary
concepts are clarified and illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to
make sense about what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions
and their clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperConnectivities and
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperConnectivities” and
“Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order
to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Extreme
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are
figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results
on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on
Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and
as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General
Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as
fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “
SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses”
and “Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s done

about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this research and going to
figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as presented
in section, “ SuperHyperConnectivities”. The keyword of this research debut in the section
“Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps
Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some
scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of
“questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. The advantages
and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and
to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”.

CHAPTER 7
Preliminaries
In this section, the basic material in this research, is referred to [Single Valued Neutro-
sophic Set](Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.1,p.1),
[Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characteriza-
tion of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-
norm](Ref.[HG38], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perGraph (NSHG)](Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref.[HG38],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref.[HG38],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their
clarifications are addressed to Ref.[HG38].
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, the new
ideas and their clarifications are elicited.
Definition 7.0.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.1,p.1).
Let X be a space 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 ]− 0, 1 [.
Definition 7.0.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.2,p.2).
Let X be a space 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 7.0.3. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership and falsity-

membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set A = {< x :
41
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 7.0.4. 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 7.0.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.5,p.2).

Assume V 0 is a given set. a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair
S = (V, E), where
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ;
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued Neutrosophic subsets of V ;
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );

P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0
(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 .
Here the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices

(NSHV) Vj are single valued Neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of
truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V.
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-
membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0
to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets
V and E are crisp sets.

Definition 7.0.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).

(Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.7,p.3).
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). The Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be characterized as follow-up items.
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex;
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex;
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge;
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called HyperEdge;
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called SuperEdge;
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called
SuperHyperEdge.
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse types of
general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG).
Definition 7.0.7 (t-norm). (Ref.[HG38], Definition 2.7, p.3).
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1]×[0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]:
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x;
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x;
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z;
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z.
Definition 7.0.8. 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 .
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
Definition 7.0.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).

S = (V, E), where

(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );

P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0

SuperHyperEdge.
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have some restrictions
and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns
and regularities.
Definition 7.0.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of
elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same.
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It
makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable.

Definition 7.0.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses

as follows.
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions;
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges;
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges;
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge
in common;
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge
in common;
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common
SuperVertex.
Definition 7.0.14. Let an ordered 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either of following
conditions hold:
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;

0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ E i0 ;
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , Vi+1
0
∈ Ei0 .

Definition 7.0.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths).

Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). a Neutrosophic
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.
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path;
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath;
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath;
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath
.
Definition 7.0.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). (Ref.[HG38],Definition

5.3,p.7).
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). A Neutrosophic
SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ;
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ;
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ;
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 .
Definition 7.0.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)).

Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called
(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic t-strength of

SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s;
(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic i-strength of


(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic f-strength of

(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic
strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s.
Definition 7.0.18. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnectivities).
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective,
Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and
C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme
cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and
Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective,
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neut-
rosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic
connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of
the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHy-
perSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and the
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient;
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either
of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and
Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E)
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality
consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such
that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Neutrosophic power
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient;
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective,

SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and

(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective,

cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either

Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is
the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities;
and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient;
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either

is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined
as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient.
Definition 7.0.19. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperConnectivities).

Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then
(i) an δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperCon-

nectivities such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities
of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S :
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (8.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the Expression (8.1),

holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive;
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnectivities such that either of the following Neutrosophic expressions hold for
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S :
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.

Table 7.1: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition (8.0.22)
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
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (8.0.21)

The Expression (8.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the

Expression (8.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive.
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine”

the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges
the position of labels to assign to the values.
Definition 7.0.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph if the Table (8.1) holds.
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to
get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more understandable.
Definition 7.0.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses if the Table (8.2) holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHy-
perConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHy-
perWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities,
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic Su-
perHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (8.2) holds.
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Since
there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities more
Neutrosophicly understandable.
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine” the
Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. The SuperHyperVertices and the
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure,
there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values.


Definition 7.0.22. Assume a SuperHyperConnectivities. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHy-

perConnectivities if the Table (8.3) holds.

CHAPTER 8
The Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. Thus the

non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, S is up. The Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of
the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, is: S is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, is: S does includes
only more than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the
“Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities”
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the
SuperHyperConnectivities,
is only and only S in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a
illustrated SuperHyperModeling. But all only obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Extreme type-
SuperHyperSets of the obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities
amid those type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E)
as a linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured on the Figures.
Example 8.0.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (8.1), (8.2), (8.3), (8.4), (8.5), (8.6),
(8.7), (8.8), (8.9), (8.10), (8.11), (8.12), (8.13), (8.14), (8.15), (8.16), (8.17), (8.18), (8.19), and
(8.20).
• On the Figure (8.1), the Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme SuperHyperConnectiv-
ities, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge
has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every
given Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = {E4 } is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = z is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {Vi }i6=3 is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 3z is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
51
Figure 8.1: The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities in the Extreme Example (8.0.1)

ities, is up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Ex-
treme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated
means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the
Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = {E4 } is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

C(N SHG) = z is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {Vi }i6=3 is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 3z is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.

ities, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty Extreme SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop Extreme
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Extreme
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Extreme
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Extreme isolated means that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperEdge
has it as an Extreme endpoint. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in
every given Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. {V4 , E4 , V1 , E2 , V1 } is the optimal Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities since the E2 is a loop Extreme SuperHyperEdge, then it could
be used twice in the consecutive sequence but the usages of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges
are once in every consecutive sequence with the exceptions on the loop Extreme SuperHy-
perEdges. It’s with interesting to mention that there’s no restrictions and no conditions
by the times of the usages of Extreme SuperHyperVertices since the restrictions and the

conditions by the times of the usages of Extreme SuperHyperEdges imply the times of the
usages of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is once in any given consecutive sequence with the
exceptions on the loop Extreme SuperHyperEdges that only imply the times of the usages of
Extreme SuperHyperVertices is twice in any given consecutive sequence. To sum them up, in
every consecutive sequence, the times of the usages of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is once if
they’ve not been corresponded to the loop Extreme SuperHyperEdges, the times of the usages
of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is twice if they’ve been corresponded to the loop Extreme
SuperHyperEdges, and the times of the usages of Extreme SuperHyperEdges is once if either
they’ve been corresponded to the loop Extreme SuperHyperEdges or not.
C(N SHG) = {E4 , E2 } is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

CExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial (N SHG) = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG) = {Vi , V1 , Vi }i6=3 is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
CExtreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial (N SHG) = 3z 3 .
• On the Figure (8.4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperConnectivities, is up.

There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, and there
are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and

E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }.
C(N SHG) = {V3 , E1 , V4 , E2 , H, E1 , V3 } is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

C(N SHG) = 4z 3 is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V3 , V4 , H, V3 } is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 4z 4 is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is

the Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

Is the Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme

SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

Is a Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Graph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum Extreme cardinality

of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such

that there’s only one Extreme consecutive sequence of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
and the Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities but
it has either all Extreme SuperHyperEdges or all Extreme SuperHyperVertices and in this
case, it has all Extreme SuperHyperEdges. There’s no Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities
such that it has all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are less than only four Extreme
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet
called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet includes only
less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyper-
Connectivities isn’t up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

Isn’t the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme Super-

HyperConnectivities. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHy-
perEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

Is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Graph ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVer-
tices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme se-
quence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, but it has either all Extreme SuperHyperEdges or
all Extreme SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has all Extreme SuperHyperEdges.
There’s no Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities such that it has all Extreme SuperHyper-
Vertices, given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet; and it’s called the Extreme Su-
perHyperConnectivities and it’s a Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it has

the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme Super-

HyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme
sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Ex-
treme SuperHyperConnectivities but it has either all Extreme SuperHyperEdges or all Extreme
SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has all Extreme SuperHyperEdges. There are only
less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,

Thus the obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities,

Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperCon-

nectivities, is:

Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, is:

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme SuperHyper-
Graph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only Extreme type-SuperHyperSet
called the
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities,

is only and only

• On the Figure (8.5), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is up.

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of
the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities = {V5 , E1 , V4 , E4 , V5 }.

C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities = {V5 , V4 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Extreme Quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 3 .





Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet











nectivities, is:


called the
is only and only


• On the Figure (8.6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. There’s

neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi , Ei , Vi+1 }21

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 22 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperConnectivities =
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 23 .


i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .


i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

such that it has all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are more than only four Extreme

Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet


i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectiv-

ities. Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .



SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has all Extreme SuperHyperEdges. There aren’t only

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Thus the non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities,

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperCon-

nectivities, is:

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .


{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Doesn’t include only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme SuperHyper-
called the
is only and only
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi , Ei , Vi+1 }21 9

i=1 ∪ {V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }j=21−j .

{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
• On the Figure (8.7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. The

following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the
simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivities =
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }



{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
such that it has all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are more than only four Extreme
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

nectivities, is:
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }
called the
is only and only

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }

{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The following Extreme
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the Extreme type-
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme SuperHyperSet
of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivities = {}
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.




Does has less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperCon-
nectivities is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHy-





nectivities, is:
called the

is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as

the Figure (8.8).

SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of
the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s no coverage on either all SuperHyperVertices
or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the quasi-discussion on the intended notion is up. Disclaimer:
The terms are in this item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion isn’t seen
and applied totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither of
all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities, Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial,
Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities, and Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities
SuperHyperPolynomial are up even neither of the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and
even more all the context are about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used notion is
quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for the convenient
usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other applied segments , the
term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of expressions.
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , Vi , V16 , V1 }6i=2 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2


{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
such that it has all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t less than only four Extreme
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyper-
Set. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHy-
perConnectivities is up. To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2



nectivities, is:
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
called the
is only and only
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected

SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8.9).
SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme type-
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s no coverage on either all

SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the quasi-discussion on the intended notion

is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since the notion
isn’t seen and applied totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the terms of neither
of all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the terms Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities, Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial,
Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities, and Extreme R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities
SuperHyperPolynomial are up even neither of the analogous terms have the prefix ‘quasi”
and even more all the context are about the quasi-style of the studied notion and the used
notion is quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for
the convenient usage and the harmony of the context with the used title and other applied
segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups of expressions. The
Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

Is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that
there’s only one Extreme consecutive sequence of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices and the
Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There are
not only four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. The obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme
SuperHyperSet includes only less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }


tices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence
of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s
sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There are not only less than four Extreme SuperHyper-
Vertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

nectivities, is:
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }

{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme SuperHy-
perGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only simple Extreme type-
SuperHyperSet called the
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the
is only and only
{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

the Figure (8.10).

neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }


{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }


{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }


nectivities, is not:
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, is not:
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
is only and only
{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s only one Extreme

SuperHyperEdges between any given Extreme amount of Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus

there isn’t any Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities at all. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of
Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],








is only and only

type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme SuperHyperSet
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }6i=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The


Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.


{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
is only and only
{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0



C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.












nectivities, is:



is only and only

In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme graph G : (V, E) thus the notions in both
settings are coincided.


C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0
















nectivities, is:


is only and only

In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this Extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme graph G : (V, E) thus the notions in both
settings are coincided. In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as
Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (8.15).


C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V8 , E3 , V9 , E4 , V8 }.




C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V8 , V9 , V8 }.



C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V15 V17 , V15 }.









































treme SuperHyperConnectivities. There are only less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices
inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,















nectivities, is:







is only and only
























































treme SuperHyperConnectivities. There are only less than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices
inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,














nectivities, is:








is only and only













C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 322 .











































erHyperGirth C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the

Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that
there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices
and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities given by
that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s an
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s the maximum Extreme cardinality
there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and
Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There are only

















nectivities, is:






is only and only















SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E)

is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such
that there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices
and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities given by
that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s an
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s the maximum Extreme cardinality

Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There are only



nectivities, is:

is only and only


Figure 8.4: The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperConnectivities in the

Example (8.0.1)

Example (8.0.1)


Example (8.0.1)

Example (8.0.1)


Example (8.0.1)

Example (8.0.1)


Example (8.0.1)

Example (8.0.1)


Example (8.0.1)

Example (8.0.1)


Example (8.0.1)
Proposition 8.0.2. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then in the worst case, literally,
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.

C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .
Is an Extreme type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower

sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality
of



Example (8.0.1)

Example (8.0.1)


Example (8.0.1)

Example (8.0.1)


Example (8.0.1)
Proof. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 } isn’t an Extreme quasi-type-
result-SuperHyperConnectivities since neither Extreme amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor
Extreme amount of Extreme SuperHyperVertices where Extreme amount refers to the Extreme
number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form any Extreme
kind of Extreme consecutive consequence as the Extreme icon and Extreme generator of the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities in the terms of the Extreme longest form. Let us consider the Extreme
SuperHyperSet

This Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to propose
property such that there’s only one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyper-
Vertices and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities given by
that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities but the maximum
Extreme cardinality indicates that these Extreme type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the Extreme


Example (8.0.1)
lower bound in the term of Extreme sharpness. In other words, the Extreme SuperHyperSet

Of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but sometimes the
Extreme SuperHyperSet

Of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a contradiction

to the supposition on the connected loopless 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 \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }

Is an Extreme quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality,

the lower sharp bound for the Extreme cardinality, of an Extreme Extreme quasi-type-result-
SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the connected loopless
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle, on-triangle, and their quasi-types but the
Extreme quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is only up in this Extreme quasi-type-result-
SuperHyperConnectivities. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the Extreme generality. There are
some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting of the graph titled
path and star as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction cycle 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
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Let V \ V \ {z, z 0 } in mind. There’s no Extreme necessity on the Extreme SuperHyperEdge since
we need at least three Extreme SuperHyperVertices to form an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. It
doesn’t withdraw the Extreme principles of the main Extreme definition since there’s no Extreme
condition to be satisfied but the Extreme condition is on the Extreme existence of the Extreme
SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there are
three Extreme SuperHyperEdges, then the Extreme SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for
the intended Extreme definition to be Extremely applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z, z 0 } is withdrawn
not by the Extreme conditions of the main Extreme definition but by the Extreme necessity of the
Extreme pre-condition on the Extreme usage of the main Extreme definition.
To make sense with the precise Extreme words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up Extreme illustrations
are Extremely coming up.
The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
V \ V \ {aE , bE 0 , cE 00 , cE 000 }E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The

Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum Extreme cardinality of
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s only one Extreme
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and Extreme SuperHyperEdges form
only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the

Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, instead of all given by Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities

is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
There are not only four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is up. The obvious simple Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet
includes only four Extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet since
they’ve come from at least so far four Extreme SuperHyperEdges. Thus the non-obvious simple
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. To sum them
up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Isn’t the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.

Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is

the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that
Extreme SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities given by that
Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s an Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only
one Extreme consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperVertices and Extreme
SuperHyperEdges form only one Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There are not only less
than four Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,



Is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities,

is not:

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called
the
is only and only

In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyper-

Modeling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel and an Ex-
treme on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also it’s an Extreme girth embedded Supe-
rHyperModel. But all only non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities amid those obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Ex-
treme SuperHyperConnectivities, are

To sum them up, assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).


Is an Extreme type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality, the

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is the
cardinality of

Proposition 8.0.3. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then the
Extreme number of type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has, the least Extreme cardinality, the
lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality, is the Extreme cardinality of
If there’s an Extreme type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least Extreme cardinality, the

lower sharp Extreme bound for cardinality.
Proof. The Extreme structure of the Extreme type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities decorates

the Extreme SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this Extreme
style implies different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum Extreme cardinality
in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Extreme bound is to have
the maximum Extreme groups of Extreme SuperHyperVertices have perfect Extreme connections
inside each of SuperHyperEdges and the outside of this Extreme SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter
but regarding the connectedness of the used Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph arising from its
Extreme properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no more than one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex in the targeted Extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no Extreme connection.
Furthermore, the Extreme existence of one Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no Extreme effect to talk
about the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since at least two Extreme SuperHyperVertices
involve to make a title in the Extreme background of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it has no Extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices make the Extreme version of Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the
Extreme setting of non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as Extreme adjective
for the initial Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no Extreme appearance of the loop
Extreme version of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge and this Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is
said to be loopless. The Extreme adjective “loop” on the basic Extreme framework engages one
Extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never happens in this Extreme setting. With these Extreme
bases, on a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge thus
there’s at least an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme cardinality of an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme cardinality
at least an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This
Extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities since either the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph is an obvious Extreme SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no
Extreme usage of this Extreme framework and even more there’s no Extreme connection inside

or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its consequences, there’s an Extreme
contradiction with the term “Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities” since the maximum Extreme
cardinality never happens for this Extreme style of the Extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that
there’s no Extreme connection inside as mentioned in first Extreme case in the forms of drawback
for this selected Extreme SuperHyperSet. Let
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) }}
Comes up. This Extreme case implies having the Extreme style of on-quasi-triangle Extreme
style on the every Extreme elements of this Extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities is the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
such that some Extreme amount of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are on-quasi-triangle Extreme
style. The Extreme cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet
Is the maximum in comparison to the Extreme SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . .}E={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
But the lower Extreme bound is up. Thus the minimum Extreme cardinality of the maximum
Extreme cardinality ends up the Extreme discussion. The first Extreme term refers to the
Extreme setting of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s
an Extreme SuperHyperClass of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has no on-quasi-triangle
Extreme style amid some amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices. This Extreme setting
of the Extreme SuperHyperModel proposes an Extreme SuperHyperSet has only some amount
Extreme SuperHyperVertices from one Extreme SuperHyperEdge such that there’s no Extreme
amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges more than one involving these some amount of these Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. The Extreme cardinality of this Extreme SuperHyperSet is the maximum and
the Extreme case is occurred in the minimum Extreme situation. To sum them up, the Extreme
SuperHyperSet
Has the maximum Extreme cardinality such that
Contains some Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct-covers-order-amount

Extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of Extreme SuperHyperVertices taken from the Extreme
SuperHyperSet
It means that the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices

Is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used Extreme

background in the Extreme terms of worst Extreme case and the common theme of the lower Extreme
bound occurred in the specific Extreme SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
which are Extreme free-quasi-triangle.
To make sense with the precise words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up illustrations are coming up.

Is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum Extreme cardinality
of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an
Extreme SuperHyperEdge amid some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is related to the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
There’s not only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet.
includes only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet since
they’ve come from at least so far an SuperHyperEdge. Thus the non-obvious simple Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is up. To sum them up, the
Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.

Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}

or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that
there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all
given by that Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s
an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s the maximum Extreme cardinality of
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge for some amount Extreme SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t only less than two
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities,
is up. The non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectiv-

ities, not:
Is the Extreme SuperHyperSet, not:
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E) but it’s impossible in the case, they’ve corresponded to an SuperHyperEdge. It’s
interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the
“Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities”
Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities,
is only and only
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperMod-

eling. It’s also, not only an Extreme free-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel and an Extreme
on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also it’s an Extreme stable embedded SuperHy-
perModel. But all only non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme R-
SuperHyperConnectivities amid those obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities, are


To sum them up, assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then the
Extreme number of R-SuperHyperConnectivities has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound
for cardinality, is the Extreme cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for
cardinality.
Proposition 8.0.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the Extreme cardinality
of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least
the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges with
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the maximum number of the
Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices
are renamed to Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in some cases but the maximum number of the
Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of the

Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every Extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least no Extreme
SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those Extreme SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles
to be contained in an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices
are potentially included in an Extreme style-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Are the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices of the 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 Extreme SuperHyperVertices and there’s only and only one
Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) between the Extreme SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj .
The other definition for the Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) in the terms of Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities but with
slightly differences in the maximum Extreme cardinality amid those Extreme type-SuperHyperSets

of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme

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

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

is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Extreme intended SuperHyperVertices but
in an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) could be different and it’s not
unique. To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Extreme cardinality of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities

is at least the maximum Extreme number of Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the Extreme
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words,
the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Extreme number
of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in some cases
but the maximum number of the Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum Extreme number of
Extreme SuperHyperVertices, has the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities.



SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}


ities, not:
is only and only


is an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of

To sum them up, in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an Extreme
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Proposition 8.0.5. Assume a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities
of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-
SuperHyperConnectivities minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of
them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only
two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, minus
all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them.
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the non-obvious
Extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses some issues about
the Extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some remarks on the Extreme
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Extreme
SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Extreme SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from that
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices but this Extreme SuperHyperSet of
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality or it
doesn’t have maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s
at least one Extreme SuperHyperEdge containing at least all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it
forms an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities where the Extreme completion of the Extreme
incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, an Extreme embedded R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original
setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality.
Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum Extreme
SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of
Extreme SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Extreme style of the embedded Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The interior types of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders.
Since the Extreme number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Extreme
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique
connections inside the Extreme SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Extreme SuperHyperVertices
pose the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus Extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could
be used only in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and in Extreme SuperHyperRelation with the
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices in that Extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded Extreme

SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s the usage of exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices since they’ve

more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more relevant than the
title “interior”. One Extreme SuperHyperVertex has no connection, inside. Thus, the Extreme
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored
in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
The Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the exclusion of the exclusion of all Extreme
SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Extreme R-
SuperHyperConnectivities with the inclusion of all Extreme SuperHyperVertices in one Extreme
SuperHyperEdge, is an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. To sum them up, in a
connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Extreme
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior
Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words,
there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct
Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, minus all Extreme
SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them.


SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,


(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

ities, not:

is only and only


To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities
of the distinct interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Extreme quasi-R-
SuperHyperConnectivities minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of
them. In other words, there’s only an unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only
two distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices in an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, minus
all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them.
Proposition 8.0.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all
interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities if
for any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them.
Proof. The main definition of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities has two titles. an
Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme R-
SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme number,
there’s an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities with that quasi-maximum Extreme SuperHy-
perCardinality in the terms of the embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, then the Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the
collection of all the Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess for all Extreme numbers less than
its Extreme corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities
ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities,

again and more in the operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess
acted on the all possible used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one
Extreme number. This Extreme number is
considered as the equivalence class for all corresponded quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess. Let
zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and GExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities be an Extreme number, an
Extreme SuperHyperSet and an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is re-formalized

and redefined as follows.
GExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal technical definition
for the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.
GExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Extreme SuperHyperCon-
nectivities poses the upcoming expressions.
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised.


= max zExtreme Number

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

To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook.


= zExtreme Number |




Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Extreme
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices
such that any amount of its Extreme SuperHyperVertices are incident to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge.
It’s, literarily, another name for “Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities” but, precisely,
it’s the generalization of “Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities” since “Extreme Quasi-
SuperHyperConnectivities” happens “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” in a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”
may not happens “Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
as initial framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about
the Extreme SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms,
“Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Extreme Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities”, and “Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities” are up.
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and GExtreme SuperHyperConnectivities be an
Extreme number, an Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities
and the new terms are up.

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = max zExtreme Number }.
And with go back to initial structure,



= zExtreme Number |



Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Extreme
SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities if for any of them, and
any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices
are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all Extreme
SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them.



SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}


ities, not:
is only and only


To sum them up, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior
Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities if for
any of them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them.

Proposition 8.0.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any
Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices
and all exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where
there’s any of them has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of
them not all of them but everything is possible about Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme
SuperHyperNeighbors out.
Proof. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. Consider
all Extreme numbers of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme SuperHyperEdge
excluding excluding more than r distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-
SuperHyperConnectivities with the least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme
cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme
SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some
Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it
doesn’t have the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some SuperHyperVertices
uniquely. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the
maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices
but it isn’t an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure
such that such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices
uniquely [there are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes
in the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex,
titled its Extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme
SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme
SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of
Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities, VESHE
is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities,
VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices
does forms any kind of Extreme pairs are titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of
an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a connected
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities only
contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Extreme SuperHyperVertices
from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible Extreme
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception
minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible
about Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out.



SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



ities, not:
is only and only



To sum them up, assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior
Extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them
has all possible Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods
in with no exception minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but
everything is possible about Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors
out.
Remark 8.0.8. The words “ Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Extreme SuperHyperDomin-

ating” both refer to the maximum Extreme type-style. In other words, they refer to the maximum
Extreme SuperHyperNumber and the Extreme SuperHyperSet with the maximum Extreme Super-
HyperCardinality.
Proposition 8.0.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider
an Extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities has the members
poses only one Extreme representative in an Extreme quasi-SuperHyperDominating.
Proof. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an Extreme
SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (8.0.7), the Extreme results are up.
Thus on a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an Extreme
SuperHyperDominating. Then an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities has the members poses only
one Extreme representative in an Extreme quasi-SuperHyperDominating.

CHAPTER 9
Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses
The previous Extreme approaches apply on the upcoming Extreme results on Extreme SuperHyper-
Classes.
Proposition 9.0.1. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then an Extreme
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities-style with the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality is an
Extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices.
Proposition 9.0.2. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then an Extreme
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior Extreme SuperHyper-
Vertices with only no Extreme exceptions in the form of interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from
the unique Extreme SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices
from the Extreme unique SuperHyperEdges. an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the
Extreme number of all the interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Also,
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities
|EESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \V \{z} isn’t a quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities since
neither amount of Extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices where amount
refers to the Extreme number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one to form
any kind of SuperHyperEdges or any number of SuperHyperEdges. Let us consider the Extreme
SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , aE 0 , bE 0 , cE 0 , . . .}E,E 0 ={E∈EESHG:(V,E) | |E|=max{|E| | E∈EESHG:(V,E) }} .
property such that there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common
and there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices but the maximum
175
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but sometimes the
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a contradiction

Is a quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound
for the cardinality, of a quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of
SuperHyperStable is only up in this quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. 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 least
two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the principles of the
main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the condition is on the existence of
the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a
SuperHyperEdge, then the Extreme SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended
definition to be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main
definition but by the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition.
The Extreme structure of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities decorates the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices don’t have received any Extreme connections so as this Extreme style implies
different versions of Extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum Extreme cardinality in the
terms of Extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower Extreme bound is to have the
maximum Extreme groups of Extreme SuperHyperVertices have perfect Extreme connections



SuperHyperSet

SuperHyperSet

Assume an Extreme SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Extreme number of the Extreme Su-
perHyperVertices. Then every Extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least no Extreme SuperHyperEdge
with others in common. Thus those Extreme SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained
in an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Those Extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially
included in an Extreme style-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .


SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Extreme SuperHyperEdges. But the non-obvious

The main definition of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities has two titles. an Extreme quasi-R-
SuperHyperConnectivities and its corresponded quasi-maximum Extreme R-SuperHyperCardinality
are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Extreme number, there’s an Extreme quasi-
R-SuperHyperConnectivities with that quasi-maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality in the
terms of the embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph, then the Extreme quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of
all the Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess for all Extreme numbers less than its Extreme
corresponded maximum number. The essence of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities ends up
but this essence starts up in the terms of the Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, again
and more in the operations of collecting all the Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess acted
on the all possible used formations of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Extreme

number. This Extreme number is




= zExtreme Number |


And then,



= zExtreme Number |





= zExtreme Number |



= zExtreme Number |

[zExtreme
Number ]Extreme Class





SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}


ities, not:
is only and only


Extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities if for any of

them, and any of other corresponded Extreme SuperHyperVertex, some interior Extreme SuperHy-
perVertices are mutually Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no Extreme exception at all minus all
Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them.
Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an Extreme SuperHyperEdge
ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Extreme SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all Extreme numbers
of those Extreme SuperHyperVertices from that Extreme SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding
more than r distinct Extreme SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given Extreme SuperHyperSet
of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities
with the least cardinality, the lower sharp Extreme bound for Extreme cardinality. Assume
a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The Extreme SuperHyperSet of
the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of the Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHy-
perVertices uniquely but it isn’t an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it doesn’t have
the maximum Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyper-
Vertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely.
The Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an
Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it doesn’t do the Extreme procedure such that such
that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme SuperHyperVertices uniquely [there
are at least one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an Extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its Extreme
SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Extreme SuperHyperVertex in the Extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S
doesn’t do “the Extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one Extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the
intended Extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood.
Thus the obvious Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities, VESHE , is an Extreme SuperHy-
perSet, VESHE , includes only all Extreme SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of Extreme
pairs are titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). Since the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is
the maximum Extreme SuperHyperCardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an Extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some Extreme Supe-
rHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Any Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities only contains all interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some
of them not all of them but everything is possible about Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and
Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out.
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. There’s neither empty SuperHy-
perEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHy-
perEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHy-
perConnectivities. The Extreme SuperHyperSet of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.

= 2z b 2 c
.
is the simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. The Extreme

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

there’s no Extreme SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an
Extreme SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There are not only two Extreme
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Extreme Su-
perHyperConnectivities is up. The obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two Extreme SuperHyper-
Vertices. But the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is up.
To sum them up, the Extreme SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

Is the non-obvious simple Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

there’s no an Extreme SuperHyperEdge for some Extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that
SuperHyperSet S of Extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Ex-
treme SuperHyperVertex of an Extreme SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Extreme
SuperHyperEdge for all Extreme SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three Extreme
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Extreme SuperHyperSet,
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

not:
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Extreme SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple Extreme type-
is only and only
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 9.0.3. In the Figure (9.1), the connected Extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E), is
highlighted and featured. The Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (9.1), is
the SuperHyperConnectivities.

137NSHG18.png
Figure 9.1: an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme SuperHyperCon-

nectivities in the Example (9.0.3)
Proposition 9.0.4. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities ESHC : (V, E).

Then an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior
Extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no Extreme exceptions on the form of interior Extreme
SuperHyperVertices from the same Extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any Extreme
SuperHyperVertex. an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme half number of
all the Extreme SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum Extreme cardinality. Also,
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.


SuperHyperSet



SuperHyperSet

SuperHyperSet

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z

{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).




= zExtreme Number |


And then,



= zExtreme Number |





= zExtreme Number |



= zExtreme Number |

[zExtreme





SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}


ities, not:
is only and only



b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.

= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

not:
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is only and only
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 9.0.5. In the Figure (9.2), the connected Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities N SHC :
(V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, in the Extreme
SuperHyperModel (9.2), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

137NSHG19.png
Figure 9.2: an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

Proposition 9.0.6. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then an Extreme
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior Extreme SuperHyper-
Vertices, corresponded to an Extreme SuperHyperEdge. an Extreme quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities
has the Extreme number of the Extreme cardinality of the one Extreme SuperHyperEdge. Also,
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X
= z |E|Extreme Cardinality | E:∈EESHG:(V,E) .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 , . . . .

C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z s + z t +, . . . .

SuperHyperSet




SuperHyperSet

SuperHyperSet

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z

{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).






= zExtreme Number |


And then,



= zExtreme Number |





= zExtreme Number |



= zExtreme Number |

[zExtreme





SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}


ities, not:
is only and only



= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.

X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X



= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X



not:
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

is only and only
= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


137NSHG20.png
Figure 9.3: an Extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

Example 9.0.7. In the Figure (9.3), the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), is
highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous
Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperStar
ESHS : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (9.3), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 9.0.8. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Then
an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities is an Extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior Extreme
SuperHyperVertices with no Extreme exceptions in the form of interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices
titled Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme
maximum number of on Extreme cardinality of the minimum SuperHyperPart minus those have
common Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors and not unique Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. Also,
min |PESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |Extreme Cardinality .
C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 .

C(N SHG)ExtremeR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .
SuperHyperSet



SuperHyperSet

SuperHyperSet

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).







= zExtreme Number |


And then,



= zExtreme Number |






= zExtreme Number |



= zExtreme Number |






SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



ities, not:
is only and only




= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .



not:
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
is only and only
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

137NSHG21.png
Figure 9.4: an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities in the Example (9.0.9)
Example 9.0.9. In the Extreme Figure (9.4), the connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB :
(V, E), is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by
the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the
connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (9.4),
is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 9.0.10. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E). Then
SuperHyperVertices with only no Extreme exception in the Extreme form of interior Extreme
SuperHyperVertices from an Extreme SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the form of
interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with
neglecting and ignoring more than some of them aren’t SuperHyperNeighbors to all. an Extreme
R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Extreme maximum number on all the Extreme summation on
the Extreme cardinality of the all Extreme SuperHyperParts form some SuperHyperEdges minus
those make Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all or not unique. Also,
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .


SuperHyperSet



SuperHyperSet

SuperHyperSet

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E



V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).



= zExtreme Number |



And then,



= zExtreme Number |





= zExtreme Number |



= zExtreme Number |






SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



ities, not:
is only and only




= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .



not:
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
is only and only
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

137NSHG22.png
Figure 9.5: an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme SuperHyper-

Connectivities in the Example (9.0.11)
Example 9.0.11. In the Figure (9.5), the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM :
(V, E), is highlighted and Extreme featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the
Algorithm in previous Extreme result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (9.5), is the Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 9.0.12. Assume a connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Then
SuperHyperVertices, excluding the Extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in the form
of interior Extreme SuperHyperVertices from same Extreme SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion on
Extreme SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them and not all. an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities
has the Extreme maximum number on all the Extreme number of all the Extreme SuperHyperEdges
don’t have common Extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. Also,
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.

= 2z b 2 c
.
SuperHyperSet



SuperHyperSet

SuperHyperSet

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
SuperHyperVertices,

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E



V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).



= zExtreme Number |



And then,



= zExtreme Number |





= zExtreme Number |



= zExtreme Number |






SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



ities, not:
is only and only




b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

not:
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is only and only
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.

137NSHG23.png
Figure 9.6: an Extreme SuperHyperWheel Extreme Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 9.0.13. In the Extreme Figure (9.6), the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel N SHW :
(V, E), is Extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm
in previous result, of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperWheel
ESHW : (V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (9.6), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

CHAPTER 10
General Extreme Results
For the SuperHyperConnectivities, Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, and the Extreme SuperHy-

perConnectivities, some general results are introduced.
Remark 10.0.1. Let remind that the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is “redefined” on the
positions of the alphabets.
Corollary 10.0.2. Assume Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities =
{theSuperHyperConnectivitiesof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|ExtremecardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperConnectivities. }
plus one Extreme SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyper-
Vertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality,
for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively.
Corollary 10.0.3. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of the
alphabet. Then the notion of Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities and SuperHyperConnectivities
coincide.
Corollary 10.0.4. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of the alpha-
bet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities
if and only if it’s a SuperHyperConnectivities.
bet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest SuperHyperConnectivities
if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperConnectivities.
Corollary 10.0.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same
identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is its SuperHyperCon-
nectivities and reversely.
Corollary 10.0.7. Assume an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyper-
Star, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter
of the alphabet. Then its Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is its SuperHyperConnectivities and
reversely.
273
Corollary 10.0.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme SuperHyperCon-

nectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined.
Corollary 10.0.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme
SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-
defined.
Star, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme SuperHy-
perConnectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined.
Corollary 10.0.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Extreme SuperHyperCon-
nectivities is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined.
Corollary 10.0.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities is
well-defined.
Star, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Extreme SuperHy-
perConnectivities is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined.
Proposition 10.0.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V is
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All SuperHy-

perMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet more than
SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus,
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.

(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following

statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements
are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.

Proposition 10.0.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is

(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All SuperHyper-

Members of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than SuperHyperNeighbor
out of SuperHyperSet. Thus,
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements

are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡

∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are

equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements

are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
Proposition 10.0.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an independent

SuperHyperSet is
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;

Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All SuperHyper-

Members of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than SuperHyperNeighbor
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the
following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities
since the following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectiv-
ities since the following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since
the following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectiv-

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
Proposition 10.0.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an Extreme SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph

which is a SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide.
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUniform

SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath.
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivit-
ies. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior Super-
HyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| =

|N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper-

Connectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperConnectivities.
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as exceptions, is out of S
which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors
in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exter-
ior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform
SuperHyperPath, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.

Connectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath.
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i).
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s
|V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv).
Proposition 10.0.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a

SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;

(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph which is a

SuperHyperWheel.
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the in-
terior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| =
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-

nectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel.
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus
it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

which is a SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of
(i) : the SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) : the SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities;

(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities.
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices
coincide.

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.



which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of
(i) : the dual SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities.
coincide.
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an Extreme SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph which is a

SuperHyperWheel.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel.
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it
isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.


which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHy-
perMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying
r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a

O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one SuperHyperNeighbors in
S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities in a
given SuperHyperStar.
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar.
nectivities and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible.
A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities

in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite.
O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s
O(ESHG)
2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete Super-
HyperMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all
the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart is a
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one
of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in
S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities in a given

SuperHyperStar.
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all
the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has no SuperHyperNeighbor in S.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.

SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.

Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities in

a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s an δ-
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

HyperMultipartite. Then Then the number of

O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying
r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices. Where the
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide.

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2


n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
O(ESHG)
+1
O(ESHG)
Proposition 10.0.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The number of
connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual
(iv) : SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some SuperHyperNeighbors in S
but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and

number of connected component is |V − S|.
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s a dual 1-
Proposition 10.0.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the number is
at most O(ESHG) and the Extreme number is
at most On (ESHG).


V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements
are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements
are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and V is the biggest SuperHyperSet

in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is
at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is
at most On (ESHG : (V, E)).
Proposition 10.0.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHy-

perComplete. The number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Extreme number is
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual
t>
2

(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has n half SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHy-
t>
2
perConnectivities.

(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive
t>
2
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectiv-
ities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHy-
perConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-
t>
2
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-
t>
2

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-
t>
2
Proposition 10.0.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. The

number is
0 and the Extreme number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;

(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities.

(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements

are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper-
Connectivities.
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following state-
ments are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDe-
fensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

perComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet.
perConnectivities/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperConnectiv-

ities/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel.
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper-
Connectivities. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S

such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperConnectivities, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities in a given SuperHyperConnectivities.
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such
that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
nectivities in a given SuperHyperPath.
that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
nectivities in a given SuperHyperWheel.
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus
it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Thus the number is
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Extreme number is
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities.


perStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual
t>
2



SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half SuperHyperNeighbors in
S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper-
Connectivities.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar.
Connectivities and they are chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as
possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2


given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHy-
perBipartite.
O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2 is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual SuperHyperConnectivities.
t>
2
Proposition 10.0.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E)

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of
these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs.
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the SuperHyper-

Vertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are extended to the
SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E).
Proposition 10.0.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If S is a

dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that
(i) v ∈ Ns (x);
(ii) vx ∈ E.
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider v ∈ V \ S.

Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities,
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x).
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since

S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities,
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x).
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.


dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set;
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number.

Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, either
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
or
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
It implies S is SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperSet.

S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, either
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
or
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. The only case
is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies
there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number.
Proposition 10.0.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then

(i) Γ ≤ O;
(ii) Γs ≤ On .

Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all SuperHyperSets of

SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |.
It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of
SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O.
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all SuperHyperSets

of Extreme SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of Extreme SuperHy-
perVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of Extreme SuperHyper-
Vertices S, Γs ≤ On .
Proposition 10.0.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is

connected. Then
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1;
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x).
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x}
where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all SuperHyperSets

of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices
S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1.
So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1.

(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x} where x
is arbitrary and x ∈ V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0

of Extreme SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of Extreme
SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets
of Extreme SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all SuperHyperSets
of Extreme SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x).
Proposition 10.0.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then

(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 };
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only a dual
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where
for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Super-
HyperConnectivities. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper-
Connectivities.

(ii) and (iii) are trivial.

(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus
it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
Proposition 10.0.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 };
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for
all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHy-

perConnectivities. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus
nectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 10.0.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectiv-

ities;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 };
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only dual
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperConnectivities. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }

where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

nectivities.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Supe-
rHyperConnectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperConnectivities. Let
S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 10.0.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Then

nectivities;


(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }
where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Connectivities.
nectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 10.0.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) Γ = 1;
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c);
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar.
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If S = {c} − {c} = ∅,

then
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces

S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s enough to
show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E)
is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 .
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 10.0.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then

6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |;
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s);
i=1

6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual maximal
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let S = {v1 , v3 } ∪

6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 3 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
6+3(i−1)≤n
It implies S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
0 6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperConnectivities. If S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
or
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
6+3(i−1)≤n
So S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. It
6+3(i−1)≤n
induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious.
Proposition 10.0.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then

b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1;
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
;
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivit-
ies.

b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
It implies S = {vi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If S 0 =
bn c+1 bn
2 c+1
{vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=12
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper-
bn
2 c+1
Connectivities. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 10.0.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then

bnc
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c;
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
;
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities.
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
bn
2c bn
2c
{vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=12
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
bn c
nectivities. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivit-
2
ies.
Proposition 10.0.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Extreme SuperHyperStars

with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then

(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectiv-

ities for N SHF;
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E);
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E);
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperConnectivities

for N SHF : (V, E).
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for

N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for

N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E).
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities
for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar.
Let S ⊆ S 0 .
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E).
Proposition 10.0.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd SuperHyperComplete

SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then
b n c+1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities for N SHF;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E);


2
for N SHF : (V, E);
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperConnectivities for
N SHF : (V, E).
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF :
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn2 c+1
(V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1 2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E).
Proposition 10.0.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even SuperHyperComplete

SuperHyperGraphs with common Extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for
N SHF : (V, E);
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E);
2
for N SHF : (V, E);
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperConnectivities for
N SHF : (V, E).
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E).
0 bn
2c bn2c
If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
nectivities for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive

following statements hold;
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a

SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a SuperHyperSet
S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities;

SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities.

Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.

Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. By S is an

s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and S is a dual (s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities.
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. By S is an (s −
2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and S is a dual s−SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 10.0.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold;
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perGraph. Then
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1) < 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Then
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 10.0.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-

nectivities;
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive


perGraph. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2

(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

and an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold;
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive


perGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive


perGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.


which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperConnectivities. Then following statements hold;
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-

nectivities;
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-

nectivities;
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive


perGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
perGraph which is SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.


which is SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

CHAPTER 11
Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme

Recognition
The cancer is the Extreme disease but the Extreme model is going to figure out what’s going on
this Extreme phenomenon. The special Extreme case of this Extreme disease is considered and as
the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease
but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The Extreme recognition
of the cancer could help to find some Extreme treatments for this Extreme disease.
In the following, some Extreme steps are Extreme devised on this disease.
Step 1. (Extreme Definition) The Extreme recognition of the cancer in the long-term Extreme
function.
Step 2. (Extreme Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Extreme model [it’s called
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long Extreme cycle of the move from the cancer
is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the
effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to
be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and
what’s done.
Step 3. (Extreme Model) There are some specific Extreme models, which are well-known and
they’ve got the names, and some general Extreme models. The moves and the Extreme
traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could
be fantasized by an Extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar,
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either
the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities or the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities in those
Extreme Extreme SuperHyperModels.
317
CHAPTER 12
Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward

Extreme SuperHyperBipartite as
Extreme SuperHyperModel
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (12.1), the Extreme SuperHyperBipartite is
Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured.
By using the Extreme Figure (12.1) and the Table (12.1), the Extreme SuperHyperBipartite
is obtained.
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous Extreme result,
Figure 12.1: an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme SuperHyper-

Connectivities
319
to The Extreme SuperHyperBipartite

of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB :

(V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (12.1), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.

CHAPTER 13
Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps

Toward Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
as Extreme SuperHyperModel
Step 4. (Extreme Solution) In the Extreme Figure (13.1), the Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
is Extreme highlighted and Extreme featured.
By using the Extreme Figure (13.1) and the Table (13.1), the Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite
is obtained.
The obtained Extreme SuperHyperSet, by the Extreme Algorithm in previous result, of the
Extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM :
(V, E), in the Extreme SuperHyperModel (13.1), is the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.
Figure 13.1: an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme

321
to The Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite


CHAPTER 14
Open Problems
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed.

The SuperHyperConnectivities and the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities are defined on a real-
world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”.
Question 14.0.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s recognitions?
Question 14.0.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperConnectivities and the
Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities?
Question 14.0.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to compute
them?
Question 14.0.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the SuperHyperConnectivities
and the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities?
Problem 14.0.5. The SuperHyperConnectivities and the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities do a
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperConnectivities, are
there else?
Problem 14.0.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these SuperHyperNum-
bers types-results?
Problem 14.0.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions concerning the
multiple types of SuperHyperNotions?
323
CHAPTER 15
Conclusion and Closing Remarks
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks of this
research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are highlighted.
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more understandable.
In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the SuperHyperConnectivities. For
that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is
redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, finds the
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and
some Extreme SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s
Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperConnectivities,
the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are
gathered in the section on the SuperHyperConnectivities and the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities.
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this
research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been
the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for
the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (15.1), some limitations and advantages of this research are
pointed out.
325
Table 15.1: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperConnectivities
3. Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies

Bibliography

Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14.
tps://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724
prints202301.0282.v1).
prints202301.0267.v1).
327
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1).
prints202301.0262.v1).
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1).
prints202301.0105.v1).
2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1).
Preprints 2023, 2023010044
10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1).
2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1).
10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1).

[21] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1).
10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767).
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30092.80004).
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007).
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803).
10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123).


10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244).

CHAPTER 16
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities
The following sections are cited as follows, which is my 136th manuscript and I use prefix 136 as
number before any labelling for items.

10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968).
@WordPress: -
331
CHAPTER 17
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By
SuperHyperConnectivities As Hyper
Diagnosis On Super Mechanism
333
CHAPTER 18
ABSTRACT
In this research, [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths] Assume a

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered 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 Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ; Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ;
Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ; Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 .
[Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] Assume a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge (NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥
maximum number of Neutrosophic t-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s;
Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic i-strength of SuperHyperPath
(NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
(NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neut-
rosophic f-strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s; Neutrosophic connective
if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP)
from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj
where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnectivities). Assume a Neutrosophic Super-
HyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
(NSHE) E = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vs }. Then E is called an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of
Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic
connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum
Extreme cardinality of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective,
Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic Su-
perHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive
335
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolyno-
mial if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective,
and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E)
is the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme
SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme
power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities Super-
HyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic
f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients
defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutro-
sophic coefficient; an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective,
Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG)
for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Extreme cardinality of an
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices in the
consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such
that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities
if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and
Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities;
an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neutrosophic
t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic connective
and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme SuperHyperPoly-
nomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of the maximum Extreme
cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme
cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that
they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and the Extreme power is corresponded to its
Extreme coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of
Neutrosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic
connective and C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality consecutive Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCon-
nectivities; and the Neutrosophic power is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient. In this
research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a SuperHyperConnectivities
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are
debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform,
and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review

is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of
this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and
the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are figured out
to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are
the under research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research.
The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them.
Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called
“SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”
are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense
SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s
Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the
form of some questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a Neutrosophic
a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG)
for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
and there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial
C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a
SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no SuperHyperVertex
not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a
SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCon-
nectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E)
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as the
Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S
of high Neutrosophic cardinality Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there’s no Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex not to in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge to have a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the
Neutrosophic power is Neutrosophicly corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient; a Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E)
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such
that there’s no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge
to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge and there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a Neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities
SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum

cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no

SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there’s no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHy-
perVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Graph N SHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic
coefficients defined as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
and there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the Neutrosophic power is Neutrosophicly corresponded to
its Neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then δ−SuperHyperConnectivities
is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality such that either of the
following expressions hold for the (Neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S :
there are |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; and |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The
first Expression, holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds
if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a max-
imal Neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum Neutrosophic cardinality such
that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHy-
perNeighbors of s ∈ S there are: |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;
and |S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a
Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is a Neutrosophic
δ−SuperHyperDefensive It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a SuperHyperCon-
nectivities . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperConnectivities
more understandable. For the sake of having Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a
need to “redefine” the notion of a “SuperHyperConnectivities ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the
there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperConnectivities
. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if the mentioned Table holds, concerning,
“The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “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”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce
the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a SuperHyperConnectivities . It’s the main.
It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If
there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperConnectivities, then it’s
officially called a “SuperHyperConnectivities” but otherwise, it isn’t a SuperHyperConnectivities .
There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “SuperHyperCon-
nectivities ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized
in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a SuperHyperConnectivities . For the
sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion
of a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” and a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities
”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters
of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the
values. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”

if the intended Table holds. And a SuperHyperConnectivities are redefined to a “Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnectivities” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “Neutrosophic” version
of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperConnectivities more understandable. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
There are some Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyper-
Path, SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite,
and SuperHyperWheel, are “Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperCon-
nectivities”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A
SuperHyperGraph has a “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” where it’s the strongest [the
maximum Neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperConnectivities amid the maximum value amid
all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperConnectivities .] SuperHyperConnectivities . A graph is a
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are
the same. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows.
It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges
with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection
amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection
amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The
SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In
this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific
group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which
in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “Neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be introduced
in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region
has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move
from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily
identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said
to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names,
and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyper-
Multipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperConnectivities
or the strongest SuperHyperConnectivities in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the
longest SuperHyperConnectivities, called SuperHyperConnectivities, and the strongest SuperHyper-
Connectivities, called Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, some general results are introduced.
Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges

but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style
of a SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperConnectivities but
literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperConnectivities. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t
form. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities theory, SuperHyperGraphs,
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnectivities, Cancer’s

CHAPTER 19
Background
341

(2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Su-


See the seminal researches [HG1; HG2; HG3]. The formalization of the notions on the framework
of Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory at [HG4; HG5; HG6; HG7; HG8; HG9; HG10;
HG35; HG36; HG37; HG38]. Two popular research books in Scribd in the terms of high readers,
2638 and 3363 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [HG39; HG40].

CHAPTER 20
Motivation and Contributions
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try to bring the
motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some attacks from the situation
which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing
situations which in that, the cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals
have excessive labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In
the embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more proper analysis
on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are officially called “SuperHyperGraphs”
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of
cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” and the relations between the individuals of cells and
the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do
research on this SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations
get worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond them.
There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality, for
any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise data, and uncertain analysis.
The latter model could be considered on the previous SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel.
It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is
the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case
of this disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The
cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter
of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease. The
Recognition” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been
the cancer in the forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the
SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region
has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from
the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of
the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be Neutrosophic
345
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are
some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general models.
The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells
could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperConnectivities,
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to
find either the optimal SuperHyperConnectivities or the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities
in those Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in
SuperHyperStar, all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but
it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a
SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperConnectivities but literarily,
it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperConnectivities. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form.
Question 20.0.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to find the “
amount of SuperHyperConnectivities” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells based on the
fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of SuperHyperConnectivities” based on
the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells?
Question 20.0.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms of these
messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated?
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled “SuperHyperGraphs”.
Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then
the research has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections
amid this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances
and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and
some results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s
Recognition”, more understandable and more clear.
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic definitions to clarify
about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial definitions about SuperHyperGraphs
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary
concepts are clarified and illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to
make sense about what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions
and their clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperConnectivities and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, are figured out in sections “ SuperHyperConnectivities” and
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order
to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses
are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses”
and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions,
there are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research
about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research
are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental
and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections,
“General Results”, “ SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”, “Results
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious

questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of
this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this
research as presented in section, “ SuperHyperConnectivities”. The keyword of this research debut
in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The
Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps
Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the
terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. The
advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this research to make
sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing
Remarks”.

CHAPTER 21
Preliminaries
In this section, the basic material in this research, is referred to [Single Valued Neutro-
sophic Set](Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.2,p.2), [Neutrosophic Set](Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.1,p.1),
[Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.5,p.2), [Characteriza-
tion of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)](Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [t-
norm](Ref.[HG38], Definition 2.7, p.3), and [Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perGraph (NSHG)](Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.7,p.3), [Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperPaths] (Ref.[HG38],Definition 5.3,p.7), and [Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)] (Ref.[HG38],Definition 5.4,p.7). Also, the new ideas and their
clarifications are addressed to Ref.[HG38].
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, the new
ideas and their clarifications are elicited.
Definition 21.0.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.1,p.1).
Let X be a space 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 ]− 0, 1 [.
Definition 21.0.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.2,p.2).
Let X be a space 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 21.0.3. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership and

falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued Neutrosophic set A = {<
349
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 .
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
Definition 21.0.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref.[HG38],Definition 2.5,p.2).

S = (V, E), where
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );

P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0
(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 .



SuperHyperEdge.
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse types of
general forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG).
Definition 21.0.7 (t-norm). (Ref.[HG38], Definition 2.7, p.3).
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1]×[0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]:
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x;
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x;
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z;
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z.
Definition 21.0.8. 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 .
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
Definition 21.0.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).

S = (V, E), where

(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );

P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0

SuperHyperEdge.
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have some restrictions
and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns
and regularities.
Definition 21.0.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of
elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same.
To get more visions on SuperHyperUniform, the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It
makes to have SuperHyperUniform more understandable.

Definition 21.0.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses

as follows.
(i). It’s Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions;
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges;
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges;
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge
in common;
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge
in common;
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common
SuperVertex.
Definition 21.0.14. Let an ordered 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 Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either of following
conditions hold:
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;

0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ E i0 ;
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , Vi+1
0
∈ Ei0 .

Definition 21.0.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths).

Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). a Neutrosophic
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.
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path;
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath;
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath;
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath
.
Definition 21.0.16 (Neutrosophic Strength of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). (Ref.[HG38],Definition

5.3,p.7).
Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). A Neutrosophic
SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to Neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
have
(i) Neutrosophic t-strength (min{T (Vi )}, m, n)si=1 ;
(ii) Neutrosophic i-strength (m, min{I(Vi )}, n)si=1 ;
(iii) Neutrosophic f-strength (m, n, min{F (Vi )})si=1 ;
(iv) Neutrosophic strength (min{T (Vi )}, min{I(Vi )}, min{F (Vi )})si=1 .
Definition 21.0.17 (Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)).

(ix) Neutrosophic t-connective if T (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic t-strength of

(x) Neutrosophic i-connective if I(E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic i-strength of


(xi) Neutrosophic f-connective if F (E) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic f-strength of

(xii) Neutrosophic connective if (T (E), I(E), F (E)) ≥ maximum number of Neutrosophic
strength of SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vj where 1 ≤ i, j ≤ s.
Definition 21.0.18. ((Neutrosophic) SuperHyperConnectivities).
(i) an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective,
SuperHyperEdges in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and
(ii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective,
cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
(iii) an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either of Neut-
rosophic t-connective, Neutrosophic i-connective, Neutrosophic f-connective, and Neutrosophic
connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the Extreme
SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme number of
the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperEdges of an Extreme SuperHy-
perSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges and Extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities; and the
Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient;
(iv) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either
is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined as
the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient;
(v) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective,

SuperHyperVertices in the consecutive Extreme sequence of Extreme SuperHyperEdges and

(vi) a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities if it’s either of Neutrosophic t-connective,

cardinality of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
(vii) an Extreme R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either

Neutrosophic connective and C(N SHG) for an Extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is
the Extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Extreme coefficients defined as the Extreme
number of the maximum Extreme cardinality of the Extreme SuperHyperVertices of an
Extreme SuperHyperSet S of high Extreme cardinality consecutive Extreme SuperHyperEdges
and Extreme SuperHyperVertices such that they form the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities;
and the Extreme power is corresponded to its Extreme coefficient;
(viii) a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial if it’s either

is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the Neutrosophic coefficients defined
as the Neutrosophic number of the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of high Neutrosophic cardinality
is corresponded to its Neutrosophic coefficient.
Definition 21.0.19. ((Extreme/Neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperConnectivities).

Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then
(i) an δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic SuperHyperCon-

nectivities such that either of the following expressions hold for the Neutrosophic cardinalities
of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S :
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ.
The Expression (8.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the Expression (8.1),

holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive;
(ii) a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnectivities such that either of the following Neutrosophic expressions hold for
the Neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S :
|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ;

|S ∩ N (s)|N eutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|N eutrosophic + δ.


to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (8.0.21)

The Expression (8.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the

Expression (8.1), holds if S is a Neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive.
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine”

the notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges
the position of labels to assign to the values.
Definition 21.0.20. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph if the Table (8.1) holds.
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to
get Neutrosophic type-results to make a Neutrosophic more understandable.
Definition 21.0.21. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses if the Table (8.2) holds. Thus Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHy-
perConnectivities, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHy-
perWheel, are Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities,
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, Neutrosophic Su-
perHyperMultiPartite, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (8.2) holds.
It’s useful to define a “Neutrosophic” version of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Since
there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities more
Neutrosophicly understandable.
For the sake of having a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s a need to “redefine” the
Neutrosophic notion of “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”. The SuperHyperVertices and the
there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values.


Definition 21.0.22. Assume a SuperHyperConnectivities. It’s redefined a Neutrosophic Super-

HyperConnectivities if the Table (8.3) holds.

CHAPTER 22
The Extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. Thus the

non-obvious Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, S is up. The Extreme type-SuperHyperSet of
the Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities, is: S is an Extreme SuperHyperSet, is: S does includes
only more than two Extreme SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the Extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the
SuperHyperConnectivities,
is only and only S in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a

illustrated SuperHyperModeling. But all only obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Extreme type-
SuperHyperSets of the obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities
amid those type-SuperHyperSets, are S. A connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E)
as a linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured on the Figures.
Example 22.0.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (9.3), (9.4), (9.5), (9.6), (9.7), (9.8),
(9.9), (9.10), (9.11), (9.12), (9.13), (9.14), (9.15), (9.16), (9.17), (9.18), (9.19), (9.20), (9.21), and
(9.22).
• On the Figure (9.3), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic SuperHy-

perConnectivities, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E2
is a loop Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus
in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means
that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperCon-
nectivities.
C(N SHG) = {E4 } is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.

C(N SHG) = z is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {Vi }i6=3 is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 3z is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
359
Figure 22.1: The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (9.0.1)
• On the Figure (9.4), the Neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Connectivities, is up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E4
is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor,
there’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex, V3 is Neutrosophic isolated means that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has
it as a Neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is excluded in
every given Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.

C(N SHG) = z is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {Vi }i6=3 is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 3z is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
• On the Figure (9.5), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. E1 , E2

and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms
of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . E2 is an isolated
SuperHyperEdge.
With the exception of E2 , the concept could be applied. With keeping E2 in the mind, the
story is coming up.

C(N SHG) = z is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.

Figure 22.2: The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

C(N SHG) = {V1 , V2 , V3 } is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.

C(N SHG) = z is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices]

is the Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

Is the Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The

Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

Is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with

the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neut-

rosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one Neutrosophic
consecutive sequence of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the Neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities but it has either all
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges or all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has
all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities such
that it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are less than only four Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-
obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet includes only less than four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the

Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

Isn’t the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Super-

HyperConnectivities. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHy-

Is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one Neutrosophic consecutive Neutrosophic se-
quence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, but it has either all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges or
all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges.
There’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities such that it has all Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices, given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet; and it’s called the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Since

it has the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of

Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one Neutrosophic
consecutive Neutrosophic sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities but it has either all
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges or all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and in this case, it
has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There are only less than four Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,

Thus the obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities,

Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Connectivities, is:

Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is:

Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic Super-
HyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only Neutrosophic type-
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple[non-simple] Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called

the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities,

is only and only

• On the Figure (9.6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperConnectivities, is up.

There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, and there
are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and
E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }.
C(N SHG) = {V3 , E1 , V4 , E2 , H, E1 , V3 } is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.

C(N SHG) = 4z 3 is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
C(N SHG) = {V3 , V4 , H, V3 } is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG) = 4z 4 is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial.
















Connectivities, is:



the
is only and only



neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple Neutrosophic type-
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities = {V5 , E1 , V4 , E4 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 2 .
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities = {V5 , V4 , V5 }.
C(N SHG)Neutrosophic Quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial = 2z 3 .









Connectivities, is:

the
is only and only


neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi , Ei , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 22 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivities =
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 23 .



i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .


i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities
such that it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are more than only four
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the
non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1

∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHy-

perConnectivities. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHy-

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities but it has either
all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges or all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and in this case,
it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. There aren’t only less than four Neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities,

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
Is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnectivities, is:

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

i=1
∪{V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }9j=21−j .
{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .

Doesn’t include only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only Neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet called the

the
is only and only
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi , Ei , Vi+1 }21 9

i=1 ∪ {V22 , E32 , Vi , Ei+11 , E11 , V1 }j=21−j .

{Vi , Vi+1 }21
i=1
∪{V22 , Vi , V1 }9j=21−j .
• On the Figure (9.9), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. The

following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices]
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivities =

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }



{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

such that it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are more than only four

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }



{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }


{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }
{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }


the
is only and only

{V8 , E17 , V14 , E12 , V12 , E15 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E16 , V7 , E7 , V8 }

{V8 , V14 , V12 , V3 , V4 , V7 , V8 }

neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The following Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the Neutro-
sophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivities = {}

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.







such that it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are less than only four Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the

Does has less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set. Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the









Connectivities, is:




the
is only and only


the Figure (9.10).

neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple Neutrosophic type-
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s no coverage on either
all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the quasi-discussion on the intended
notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this item are referred to the prefix “quasi” since
the notion isn’t seen and applied totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the
terms of neither of all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the
terms Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities
SuperHyperPolynomial, Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities, and Neutrosophic
R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial are up even neither of the analogous
terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the context are about the quasi-style of the
studied notion and the used notion is quasi-notion even they’re addressed without the term
“quasi”. Furthermore, for the convenient usage and the harmony of the context with the used
title and other applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the following groups
of expressions.

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , Vi , V16 , V1 }6i=2 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 11z 8 .


{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2


{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
such that it has all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t less than only four
{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2



{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2


{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2


{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2



{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2


the
is only and only

{Vi , Ei , V6 , E17 , V16 , d1 , V1 }5i=2
In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected

SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9.11).


type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s no coverage
on either all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges. Thus the quasi-discussion on the
intended notion is up. Disclaimer: The terms are in this item are referred to the prefix “quasi”
since the notion isn’t seen and applied totally but somehow the coincidence is achieved in the
terms of neither of all SuperHyperVertices or all SuperHyperEdges in any coverage. Thus the
terms Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities
SuperHyperPolynomial, Neutrosophic R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities, and Neutrosophic
R-Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial are up even neither of the ana-
logous terms have the prefix ‘quasi” and even more all the context are about the quasi-style
of the studied notion and the used notion is quasi-notion even they’re addressed without
the term “quasi”. Furthermore, for the convenient usage and the harmony of the context
with the used title and other applied segments , the term “quasi” isn’t used more than the
following groups of expressions. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHy-

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }


{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }


{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }


{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
Is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic

rHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There are not only
four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up. The obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperSet includes only less than four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
Does has less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperConnectivities isn’t up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }


{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }


{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
Is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Graph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there’s only one Neutrosophic consecutive Neutro-
sophic sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Neutrosophic type-
SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices]
such that there’s only one Neutrosophic consecutive Neutrosophic sequence of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperConnectivities. There are not only less than four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

Connectivities, is:

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }


{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }
HyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only simple Neutrosophic
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the
is only and only

{V14 , E4 , V12 , E6 , V13 , E7 , V14 }
{V14 V12 , V13 , V14 }

the Figure (9.12).

neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }


{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }


{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }


{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }


{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }


{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }


{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }


{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

Connectivities, is not:

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is not:

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }
is only and only

{V1 , E6 , V5 , E5 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E7 , V2 , E1 , V1 }
{V1 , V5 , V6 , V4 , V2 , V1 }

neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic Su-
perHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Neutro-
sophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There’s only one
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges between any given Neutrosophic amount of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. Thus there isn’t any Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities at all. The


















is only and only



type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The Neutrosophic Super-

HyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicSuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }6i=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 6 .
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCon-

nectivities. The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHy-

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.


{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.


{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.



{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.


{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.


{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.


{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.


{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.
is only and only

{V1 , E1 , V2 , E10 , V3 , E8 , V6 , E4 , V4 , E2 , V5 , E6 , V1 }.


C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {}.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0.

Connectivities, is:



is only and only

In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Neutrosophic graph G : (V, E) thus the
notions in both settings are coincided.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 0





Connectivities, is:

is only and only

In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an Neutrosophic graph G : (V, E) thus
the notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (9.17).

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V8 , E3 , V9 , E4 , V8 }.





C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V8 , V9 , V8 }.

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V15 V17 , V15 }.








































SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic Super-
HyperConnectivities. There are only less than four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside
the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,















Connectivities, is:








is only and only
























































HyperConnectivities. There are only less than four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside
the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
















Connectivities, is:







is only and only














C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = 322 .











































erHyperGirth C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that
there’s only one Neutrosophic consecutive Neutrosophic sequence of Neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perConnectivities given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s
SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There are only less
than four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
















Connectivities, is:







is only and only

















SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges]
HyperConnectivities given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There are only less
than four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,


Connectivities, is:
is only and only

Proposition 22.0.2. Assume a connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , E3 , V4 , E4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 4 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z 5 .


Example (9.0.1)

Example (9.0.1)


Example (9.0.1)

Example (9.0.1)


Example (9.0.1)

Example (9.0.1)


Example (9.0.1)
Figure 22.10: The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperConnectivities in

the Example (9.0.1)


the Example (9.0.1)

the Example (9.0.1)


the Example (9.0.1)

the Example (9.0.1)


the Example (9.0.1)
Is a Neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality, the

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is the
cardinality of

SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 } isn’t a Neutrosophic
quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities since neither Neutrosophic amount of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges nor Neutrosophic amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices where Neutrosophic
amount refers to the Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges)
more than one to form any Neutrosophic kind of Neutrosophic consecutive consequence as the
Neutrosophic icon and Neutrosophic generator of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the
terms of the Neutrosophic longest form. Let us consider the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet



the Example (9.0.1)
This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to

propose property such that there’s only one Neutrosophic consecutive Neutrosophic sequence of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities 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

Of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but sometimes


the Example (9.0.1)

the Example (9.0.1)


the Example (9.0.1)

the Example (9.0.1)


the Example (9.0.1)
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet

Of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is free-quasi-triangle and it doesn’t make a contradiction
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }
Is a Neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality,
the lower sharp bound for the Neutrosophic cardinality, of a Neutrosophic Neutrosophic quasi-type-
result-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Then we’ve lost some connected loopless Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the connected loopless
Neutrosophic quasi-type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is only up in this Neutrosophic quasi-type-
result-SuperHyperConnectivities. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the Neutrosophic generality.


the Example (9.0.1)
There are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes from the setting
of the graph titled path and star as the counterexamples-classes or reversely direction cycle 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
V \ V \ {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V1 }.
Let V \ V \ {z, z 0 } in mind. There’s no Neutrosophic necessity on the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge

since we need at least three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices to form a Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the Neutrosophic principles of the main Neutrosophic definition
since there’s no Neutrosophic condition to be satisfied but the Neutrosophic condition is on the
Neutrosophic existence of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there are three Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges, then the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended Neutrosophic definition
to be Neutrosophicly applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z, z 0 } is withdrawn not by the Neutrosophic
conditions of the main Neutrosophic definition but by the Neutrosophic necessity of the Neutrosophic
pre-condition on the Neutrosophic usage of the main Neutrosophic definition.
To make sense with the precise Neutrosophic words in the terms of “R-’, the follow-up Neutrosophic
illustrations are Neutrosophicly coming up.
The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple

Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.

The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Graph ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality
of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s only
one Neutrosophic consecutive Neutrosophic sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities given
by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities,
instead of all given by Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is related to the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
There are not only four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is up. The obvious
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only four Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
since they’ve come from at least so far four Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. Thus the non-obvious
simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t up.
To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Isn’t the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-

SuperHyperConnectivities. Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],


SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E)

is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges]
HyperConnectivities given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s only one Neutrosophic consecutive Neut-
rosophic sequence of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form
only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There are not only less than four Neutrosophic
Is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCon-
Does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet
called the
is only and only

In a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModel-

ing. It’s also, not only a Neutrosophic free-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel and a Neutrosophic
on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also it’s a Neutrosophic girth embedded SuperHyper-
Model. But all only non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities amid those obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, are


Is a Neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality, the

lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic type-result-SuperHyperConnectivities is
the cardinality of

Proposition 22.0.3. Assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then
the Neutrosophic number of type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has, the least Neutrosophic
cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for Neutrosophic cardinality, is the Neutrosophic
cardinality of
If there’s a Neutrosophic type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least Neutrosophic

cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound for cardinality.
Proof. The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic type-result-R-SuperHyperConnectivities

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-SuperHyperConnectivities. 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-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic cardinality of a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. Thus, a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic
cardinality at least a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
V \ V \ {z}. This Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities
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-SuperHyperConnectivities” 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-SuperHyperConnectivities 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-SuperHyperConnectivities for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used

Neutrosophic background in the Neutrosophic terms of worst Neutrosophic case and the common
theme of the lower Neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are Neutrosophic free-quasi-triangle.


Is an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is related to the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,

There’s not only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet. Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is up. The obvious simple
Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutro-
sophic 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-SuperHyperConnectivities is up. To
sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
Is the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-

rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is an Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Graph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities and it’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices instead of all given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. There isn’t only less than two Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
Thus the non-obvious Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities,
is up. The non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Connectivities, not:
Is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:

does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called
the
“Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities”
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities,
is only and only

on-triangle embedded SuperHyperModel but also it’s a Neutrosophic stable embedded SuperHyper-

To sum them up, assume a simple Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Then the
Neutrosophic number of R-SuperHyperConnectivities has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for cardinality, is the Neutrosophic cardinality of
If there’s a R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for
cardinality.
Proposition 22.0.4. 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-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
It’s straightforward that the Neutrosophic cardinality of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities

is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words,
the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum Neutrosophic
number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities
in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum
Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
are contained in a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.

Proof. 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-SuperHyperConnectivities. Those Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a Neutrosophic style-R-SuperHyperConnectivities.
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
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-SuperHyperConnectivities is
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .
This definition coincides with the definition of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities 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-SuperHyperConnectivities.

E
Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities =
E

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

is fixed that means Ex = E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) . for all Neutrosophic intended SuperHyperVertices but
in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, 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
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

is at least the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdges with the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In
other words, the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges contains the maximum
Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are renamed to Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perConnectivities in some cases but the maximum number of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
with the maximum Neutrosophic number of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are contained in a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities.





rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



the

is only and only


is a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp
bound for the cardinality, of a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities is the cardinality of
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-SuperHyperConnectivities is at least
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).

Proposition 22.0.5. Assume a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG :

(V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Neutrosophic
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them

but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-
R-SuperHyperConnectivities, minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not
all of them.
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the non-obvious
Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses some issues about the
Neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some remarks on the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all taken from
that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but this Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum Neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-
obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at least all
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities
where the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily,
a Neutrosophic embedded R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The SuperHyperNotions of embedded
SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the original setting, these types of SuperHy-
perSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is
elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality
and they’re Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum Neutrosophic style of the embedded Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The interior types of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are de-
ciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the per-
fect unique connections inside the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices pose the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus Neutrosophic exterior
SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic
SuperHyperRelation with the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperEdge. In the embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s the usage of exterior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the
title “exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no
connection, inside. Thus, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to lead on the optimal case implying
the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities with
the exclusion of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the inclusion
of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, is a Neutrosophic
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic Su-
perHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E)
has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of
any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeigh-
bor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an
Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to
some of them but not all of them.





rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



the
is only and only



To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum
possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Neutrosophic
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them
but not all of them. In other words, there’s only an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them
but not all of them.
Proposition 22.0.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all in-
terior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic
exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them.
Proof. The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has two titles. a
Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities and its corresponded quasi-maximum Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-R-styles. For any Neutrosophic number,
there’s a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities with that quasi-maximum Neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s
an embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, then the Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions
lead us to take the collection of all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess for all
Neutrosophic numbers less than its Neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities ends up but this essence starts up in the terms of the
Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, again and more in the operations of collecting
all the Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivitiess acted on the all possible used formations
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one Neutrosophic number. This Neutrosophic
number is
zNeutrosophic Number , SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet and GNeutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities be a Neutro-
sophic number, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.
Then
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class = {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet = GNeutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities ,
|SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= zNeutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is re-

formalized and redefined as follows.
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =

∪zNeutrosophic Number {SNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

for the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.
GNeutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities =
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
= zNeutrosophic Number |
= max zNeutrosophic Number }.
[zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities poses the upcoming expressions.
{S ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
= max zNeutrosophic Number

And then,







Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
such that any amount of its Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are incident to a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities”
but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities” since
“Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities” happens “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities”
in a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “Neutrosophic Super-
HyperNeighborhood” may not happens “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” in a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background since there are some ambigu-
ities about the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the
terms, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “Neutrosophic Quasi-SuperHyperConnectivities”,
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” are up.

Thus, let zNeutrosophic Number , NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and GNeutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities

be a Neutrosophic number, a Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and a Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perConnectivities and the new terms are up.
∪zNeutrosophic Number {NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |Neutrosophic Cardinality
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class =
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality
{NNeutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zNeutrosophic Number [zNeutrosophic Number ]Neutrosophic Class |
|NNeutrosophic SuperHyperSet |Neutrosophic Cardinality = max zNeutrosophic Number }.






Thus, in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The all interior Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities if for any of
them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutrosophic





rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

the

is only and only


Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with
no Neutrosophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of
them.
Proposition 22.0.7. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Neut-
rosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities only contains all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and
all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where
there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some
of them not all of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out.
Proof. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a Neutrosophic Su-
perHyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all
Neutrosophic numbers of those Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any
given Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a Neut-
rosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the least cardinality, the lower sharp Neutrosophic bound

for Neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet S of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely but it isn’t a Neutrosophic
R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it doesn’t have the maximum Neutrosophic cardinality
of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some SuperHyperVertices uniquely. The Neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum Neutrosophic
cardinality of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t
a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it doesn’t do the Neutrosophic procedure
such that such that there’s a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices uniquely [there are at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside implying
there’s, sometimes in the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the Neutrosophic
procedure”.]. There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the
obvious Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities, VESHE is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities, VESHE , is a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind
of Neutrosophic pairs are titled Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices VESHE , is the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge to have some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices uniquely. Thus, in a connected
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities
only contains all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior Neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices from the unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all
possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor-
hoods in with no exception minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them not all of
them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Neutrosophic






rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



the
is only and only


To sum them up, assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Any Neut-
rosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities only contains all interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
and all exterior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
where there’s any of them has all possible Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s
all Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception minus all Neutrosophic Super-
HypeNeighbors to some of them not all of them but everything is possible about Neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighborhoods and Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out.

Remark 22.0.8. The words “ Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities” and “Neutrosophic SuperHy-

perDominating” both refer to the maximum Neutrosophic type-style. In other words, they refer
to the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperNumber and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet with the
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality.
Proposition 22.0.9. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider
a Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities has the
members poses only one Neutrosophic representative in a Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperDominating.
Proof. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider a Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (9.0.7), the Neutrosophic results are
up. Thus on a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider a Neutrosophic
SuperHyperDominating. Then a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities has the members poses
only one Neutrosophic representative in a Neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperDominating.

CHAPTER 23
Results on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses
The previous Neutrosophic approaches apply on the upcoming Neutrosophic results on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses.
Proposition 23.0.1. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then a
Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities-style with the maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Cardinality is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Proposition 23.0.2. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then a
Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no Neutrosophic exceptions in the form of interior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges not excluding only
any interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the Neutrosophic unique SuperHyperEdges. a
Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic number of all the interior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Also,
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivities

|EESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicQuasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial
= 2z b 2 c
.
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = az s + bz t .
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities
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
487
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
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-quasi-triangle style is up but sometimes

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

SuperHyperEdge, then the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended
The Neutrosophic structure of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities 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

SuperHypeSet




Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has z Neutrosophic number of the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at least no
Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z

{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).


The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. But the non-obvious
SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s distinct amount of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for distinct amount of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices up to all
taken from that Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but this
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum
Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCar-
dinality. In a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
containing at least all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a Neutrosophic quasi-
R-SuperHyperConnectivities where the Neutrosophic completion of the Neutrosophic incidence
is up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, a Neutrosophic embedded R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In the
original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum SuperHy-
perCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those SuperHyperSets have the
maximum Neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re Neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The
less than two distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are included in the minimum
Neutrosophic style of the embedded Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The interior
types of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the Neutrosophic number of
SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The
common connections, more precise and more formal, the perfect unique connections inside the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet for any distinct types of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices pose
the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus Neutrosophic exterior SuperHyperVertices
could be used only in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in Neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation
with the interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in that Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In
the embedded Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, there’s the usage of exterior Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title
“exterior” is more relevant than the title “interior”. One Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no
the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities. The Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities
with the exclusion of the exclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge and with other terms, the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities with the
inclusion of all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, is a
Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities. To sum them up, in a connected non-obvious
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only the maximum possibilities of the distinct interior Neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices inside of any given Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities minus all
Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to some of them but not all of them. In other words, there’s
only an unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has only two distinct Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in an Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities, minus all Neutrosophic
The main definition of the Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has two titles. a Neut-
rosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities and its corresponded quasi-maximum Neutrosophic

number is
Then





And then,




















rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



the
is only and only



if for any of them, and any of other corresponded Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, some interior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no Neutro-
sophic exception at all minus all Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to any amount of them.
Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a Neutrosophic Super-
HyperEdge ESHE : E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) has some Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all


The SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperConnectivities, is up. There’s neither empty Supe-
rHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of Neutrosophic

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is the simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. The


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Is an Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities C(ESHG) for an Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such
that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and
there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. There are not
only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is up. The obvious simple Neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet includes only two Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices],

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Connectivities is up. To sum them up, the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the Neutrosophic

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

Graph ESHG : (V, E) is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices such that there’s no a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some Neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices given by that Neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the Neutrosophic Su-
perHyperConnectivities and it’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Since it’s
SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there’s no Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex of a
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge is common and there’s an Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for all Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperVertices. There aren’t only less than three Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
nectivities, not:
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple Neutrosophic type-

Figure 23.1: a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

is only and only

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 23.0.3. In the Figure (10.1), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E),
is highlighted and featured. The Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel
(10.1), is the SuperHyperConnectivities.

Proposition 23.0.4. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities ESHC : (V, E).

Then a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no Neutrosophic exceptions on the form of
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods not
excluding any Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. a Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities
has the Neutrosophic half number of all the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the
maximum Neutrosophic cardinality. Also,

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.






SuperHypeSet



Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and
E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or

E

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).



number is
Then



[zNeutrosophic
Number ]Neutrosophic Class

And then,





















rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



the

is only and only




b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.




b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
nectivities, not:
b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is only and only

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 23.0.5. In the Figure (10.2), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities

N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, in
the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (10.2), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 23.0.6. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then a
Neutrosophic quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to a Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. a Neutrosophic
quasi-R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic number of the Neutrosophic cardinality of
the one Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Also,

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X
= z |E|Neutrosophic Cardinality | E:∈EESHG:(V,E) .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 , {Vj }tj=1 , . . . .

C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = z s + z t +, . . . .

Figure 23.2: a Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of







SuperHypeSet





Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and


E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).



number is

Then





And then,




















rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}



the
is only and only





= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X




= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X



= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X




= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X



= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X



nectivities, not:

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X

is only and only

= {E ∈ EESHG:(V,E) }.
X


Figure 23.3: a Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (10.0.7)
Example 23.0.7. In the Figure (10.3), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E),
is highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in
previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic
SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (10.3), is the Neutrosophic
Proposition 23.0.8. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E).
Then a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with no Neutrosophic exceptions in the form of interior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. a Neutrosophic R-
SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic maximum number of on Neutrosophic cardinality of
the minimum SuperHyperPart minus those have common Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors and
not unique Neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Also,

min |PESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= z min |PESHG:(V,E) |Neutrosophic Cardinality .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivities = {Vi }si=1 .
C(N SHG)N eutrosophicR−Quasi−SuperHyperConnectivitiesSuperHyperP olynomial = az s .







SuperHypeSet


Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).


Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or
E



V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).



number is
Then



And then,



















rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

the
is only and only






= {E2i−1 }i=1 .


= {E2i−1 }i=1 .




= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .


= {E2i−1 }i=1 .



= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

nectivities, not:

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

Figure 23.4: a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutrosophic

Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Example (10.0.9)
is only and only

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 23.0.9. In the Neutrosophic Figure (10.4), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipart-
ite ESHB : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. The obtained Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neut-
rosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E),
in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (10.4), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.

Proposition 23.0.10. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E).

Then a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no Neutrosophic exception in the Neutrosophic form of
interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only no exception
in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors”
with neglecting and ignoring more than some of them aren’t SuperHyperNeighbors to all. a
Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic maximum number on all the
Neutrosophic summation on the Neutrosophic cardinality of the all Neutrosophic SuperHyperParts
form some SuperHyperEdges minus those make Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some not all
or not unique. Also,

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .






SuperHypeSet



Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and
E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or

E

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).



number is
Then




And then,




















rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

the

is only and only




= {E2i−1 }i=1 .


= {E2i−1 }i=1 .



= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .


= {E2i−1 }i=1 .


= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
nectivities, not:
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
= {E2i−1 }i=1 .

is only and only

= {E2i−1 }i=1 .
Example 23.0.11. In the Figure (10.5), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite

ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and Neutrosophic featured. The obtained Neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperModel (10.5), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 23.0.12. Assume a connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Then
a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the Neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only no
exception in the form of interior Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same Neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion on Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbors to some of them and
not all. a Neutrosophic R-SuperHyperConnectivities has the Neutrosophic maximum number on all
the Neutrosophic number of all the Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges don’t have common Neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors. Also,

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

Figure 23.5: a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic








SuperHypeSet



Formally, consider
V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).
Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE } .

z
and
E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
Or

E

V \ (V \ {aE , bE , cE , . . . , zE }).



number is
Then




And then,




















rHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}

the

is only and only




b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.



b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.



b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.

nectivities, not:

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.


b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
is only and only

b c
= {E2i−1 }i=1 2
.
= 2z b 2 c
.
Example 23.0.13. In the Neutrosophic Figure (10.6), the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel
N SHW : (V, E), is Neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The obtained Neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the
connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel
(10.6), is the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.

Figure 23.6: a Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Neutrosophic Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities in the Neutrosophic Example (10.0.13)

CHAPTER 24
General Neutrosophic Results
For the SuperHyperConnectivities, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, and the Neutrosophic

SuperHyperConnectivities, some general results are introduced.
Remark 24.0.1. Let remind that the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is “redefined” on the
positions of the alphabets.
Corollary 24.0.2. Assume Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
N eutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities =
{theSuperHyperConnectivitiesof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|N eutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperConnectivities. }
plus one Neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and
the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively.
alphabet. Then the notion of Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities and SuperHyperConnectivities
coincide.
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperCon-
nectivities if and only if it’s a SuperHyperConnectivities.
bet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest SuperHyperConnectivities
if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperConnectivities.
Corollary 24.0.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same
identical letter of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is its SuperHyper-
Connectivities and reversely.
Corollary 24.0.7. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyper-
Star, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical letter
of the alphabet. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is its SuperHyperConnectivities
and reversely.
587
Corollary 24.0.8. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Connectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined.
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities
isn’t well-defined.
Corollary 24.0.10. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHy-
perStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities isn’t well-
defined.
Corollary 24.0.11. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Connectivities is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined.
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities is
well-defined.
Corollary 24.0.13. Assume a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHy-
perStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperConnectivities is well-defined.
Proposition 24.0.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V is
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.

(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements
are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.

Proposition 24.0.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is

(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;

(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements

are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡

∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are

equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements

are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
Proposition 24.0.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an independent

SuperHyperSet is
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;

Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All SuperHyper-

Members of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than SuperHyperNeighbor
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the
following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectiv-
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since
the following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectiv-

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
Proposition 24.0.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph

which is a SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;


∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.

Proposition 24.0.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a

SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal

(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph which is

a SuperHyperWheel.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-

nectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel.
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus
it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

which is a SuperHyperConnectivities/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of
(i) : the SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) : the SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities;

(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities.
coincide.

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.



which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of
(i) : the dual SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) : the dual SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperConnectivities;
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-SuperHyperConnectivities.
coincide.
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph which is

a SuperHyperWheel.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperConnectivities in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel.
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it
isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.


which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHy-
perMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying
r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a

O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2


O(ESHG)
+1
O(ESHG)
HyperMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all
the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart is a
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one
of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in
S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.

SuperHyperStar.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.

SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.

Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities in

a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s an δ-

HyperMultipartite. Then Then the number of

O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
O(ESHG)
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying
r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices. Where the
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide.

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2


n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
O(ESHG)
+1
O(ESHG)
Proposition 24.0.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The number of
connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual
(iv) : SuperHyperConnectivities;
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some SuperHyperNeighbors in S
but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and

number of connected component is |V − S|.
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s a dual 1-
Proposition 24.0.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the number is
at most O(ESHG) and the Neutrosophic number is
at most On (ESHG).


equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements
are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements
are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and V is the biggest SuperHyperSet

in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is
at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is
at most On (ESHG : (V, E)).

perComplete. The number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the Neutrosophic number is
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual
t>
2



Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHy-
t>
2
perConnectivities.

(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive
t>
2
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectiv-
ities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHy-
perConnectivities in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-
t>
2
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-
t>
2

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-
t>
2
Proposition 24.0.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. The

number is
0 and the Neutrosophic number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;

(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities.

(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements

are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper-
Connectivities.
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following state-
ments are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities since the following
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
The number is
0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDe-
fensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

perComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet.
perConnectivities/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperConnectiv-

ities/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel.
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper-
Connectivities. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S

such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperConnectivities, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
nectivities in a given SuperHyperConnectivities.
that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
nectivities in a given SuperHyperPath.
that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
nectivities in a given SuperHyperWheel.
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus
it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Thus the number is
O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the Neutrosophic number is
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities.


perStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual
t>
2



SuperHyperConnectivities. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half SuperHyperNeighbors in
S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Connectivities.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar.
Connectivities and they are chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as
possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2


given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHy-
perBipartite.
O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2 is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Thus the number is
O(ESHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual SuperHyperConnectivities.
t>
2
Proposition 24.0.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E)

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of
these specific SuperHyperClasses of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs.
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the SuperHyper-

Vertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are extended to the
SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E).

dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that
(i) v ∈ Ns (x);
(ii) vx ∈ E.

Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities,
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x).

S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities,
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x).
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.


dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, then
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set;
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number.

Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, either
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
or
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
It implies S is SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperSet.

S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities, either
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
or
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. The only case
is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies
there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number.

(i) Γ ≤ O;
(ii) Γs ≤ On .

Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all SuperHyperSets of

SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |.
It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of
SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O.
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. For all SuperHyperSets

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets
of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On .
Proposition 24.0.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is

connected. Then
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1;
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x).
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x}
where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0

of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices
S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1.
So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1.

(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x} where x
is arbitrary and x ∈ V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0

of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for
all SuperHyperSets of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x).
So for all SuperHyperSets of Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x).
Proposition 24.0.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then

nectivities;
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only a dual
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Connectivities.


nectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 24.0.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 };
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for
all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

nectivities.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus
nectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 24.0.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectiv-

ities;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 };
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only dual
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperConnectivities. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }

where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

nectivities.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Supe-
rHyperConnectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperConnectivities. Let
S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 24.0.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Then

nectivities;


(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Connectivities.
nectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperConnectivities. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 24.0.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal SuperHyperConnectivities;
(ii) Γ = 1;
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c);
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperConnectivities.
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. If S = {c} − {c} = ∅,

then
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. It induces

S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Thus it’s enough to
show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Suppose ESHG : (V, E)
is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 .
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 24.0.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then

6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |;
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s);
i=1

6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual maximal
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let S = {v1 , v3 } ∪

6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 3 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
6+3(i−1)≤n
It implies S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
0 6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperConnectivities. If S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
or
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
6+3(i−1)≤n
So S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. It
6+3(i−1)≤n
induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive
Proposition 24.0.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then

b n c+1
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1;

2
;
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivit-
ies.

b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
bn c+1 bn
2 c+1
{vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=12
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper-
bn
2 c+1
Connectivities. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 24.0.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then

bnc
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c;

2
;
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities.
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
bn
2c bn
2c
{vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=12
bn c
nectivities. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivit-
2
ies.
Proposition 24.0.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

Stars with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then

(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectiv-

ities for N SHF;
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E);
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E);
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperConnectivities

for N SHF : (V, E).
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for

N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for

N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities
for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar.
Let S ⊆ S 0 .
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E).
Proposition 24.0.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd SuperHyperComplete

SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then
b n c+1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-
nectivities for N SHF;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E);


2
for N SHF : (V, E);
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
2
are only a dual maximal SuperHyperConnectivities for
N SHF : (V, E).
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF :
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn2 c+1
(V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1 2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E).
Proposition 24.0.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even SuperHyperComplete

SuperHyperGraphs with common Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for
N SHF : (V, E);
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E);
2
for N SHF : (V, E);
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
are only dual maximal SuperHyperConnectivities for
N SHF : (V, E).
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities for N SHF : (V, E).
0 bn
2c bn2c
If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
nectivities for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive

(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities;

SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities;

SuperHyperConnectivities, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities.

Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.

Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. By S is an

s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and S is a dual (s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities.
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. By S is an (s −
2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities and S is a dual s−SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperConnectivities, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful SuperHyperConnectivities.
Proposition 24.0.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive
perGraph. Then
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Then
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-

nectivities;
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive


perGraph. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
2 2


and an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive


perGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive


perGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.


O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-

nectivities;
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCon-

nectivities;
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive


perGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
perGraph which is SuperHyperConnectivities. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.


∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

CHAPTER 25
Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s

The cancer is the Neutrosophic disease but the Neutrosophic model is going to figure out what’s
going on this Neutrosophic phenomenon. The special Neutrosophic case of this Neutrosophic disease
is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under
attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The
Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer could help to find some Neutrosophic treatments for this
Neutrosophic disease.
In the following, some Neutrosophic steps are Neutrosophic devised on this disease.
Step 1. (Neutrosophic Definition) The Neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the long-term
Neutrosophic function.
Step 2. (Neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the Neutrosophic model
[it’s called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long Neutrosophic cycle of the move from
the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily
identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves
and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s
said to be Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened
and what’s done.
Step 3. (Neutrosophic Model) There are some specific Neutrosophic models, which are well-known
and they’ve got the names, and some general Neutrosophic models. The moves and the
Neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups
of cells could be fantasized by a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperConnectivities,
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The
aim is to find either the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities or the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperConnectivities in those Neutrosophic Neutrosophic SuperHyperModels.
631
CHAPTER 26
Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps

Toward Neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite as Neutrosophic
SuperHyperModel
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (13.1), the Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perBipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic featured.
Figure 26.1: a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

633
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite

By using the Neutrosophic Figure (13.1) and the Table (13.1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Bipartite is obtained.
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in previous
Neutrosophic result, of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (13.1), is the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.

CHAPTER 27
Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic

Steps Toward Neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite as Neutrosophic
SuperHyperModel
Step 4. (Neutrosophic Solution) In the Neutrosophic Figure (14.1), the Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perMultipartite is Neutrosophic highlighted and Neutrosophic featured.
By using the Neutrosophic Figure (14.1) and the Table (14.1), the Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Multipartite is obtained.
The obtained Neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Neutrosophic Algorithm in previous result,
Figure 27.1: a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

635
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite

of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected Neutrosophic SuperHyperMulti-

partite ESHM : (V, E), in the Neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (14.1), is the Neutrosophic

CHAPTER 28
Open Problems
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed.

The SuperHyperConnectivities and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities are defined on a
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”.
Question 28.0.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s recognitions?
Question 28.0.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperConnectivities and the
Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities?
Question 28.0.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to compute
them?
Question 28.0.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the SuperHyperConnectivities
and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities?
Problem 28.0.5. The SuperHyperConnectivities and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities do
a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperConnectivities,
are there else?
Problem 28.0.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these SuperHyperNum-
bers types-results?
Problem 28.0.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions concerning the
multiple types of SuperHyperNotions?
637
CHAPTER 29
Conclusion and Closing Remarks
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks of this
research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are highlighted.
This research uses some approaches to make Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more understandable.
In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the SuperHyperConnectivities. For
that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is
redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the new definition for the Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, finds the
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s
Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperConnectivities, the
new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered
in the section on the SuperHyperConnectivities and the Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities.
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this
research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been
the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for
the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (16.1), some limitations and advantages of this research are
pointed out.
639
Table 29.1: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperConnectivities
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies

Bibliography

Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14.
tps://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724
prints202301.0282.v1).
prints202301.0267.v1).
641
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1).
prints202301.0262.v1).
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1).
prints202301.0105.v1).
2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1).
Preprints 2023, 2023010044
10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1).
2023, 2023010088 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1).
10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1).

[21] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1).
10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767).
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30092.80004).
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007).
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803).
10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123).


10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244).

CHAPTER 30
Books’ Contributions
“Books’ Contributions”: | Featured Threads

The following references are cited by chapters.
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29441.94562).

10.13140/RG.2.2.17252.24968).

@WordPress: -
@ZENODO_ORG: https://zenodo.org/record/7606366 Article #136
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By SuperHyperCon-

nectivities As Hyper Diagnosis On Super Mechanism
@WordPress: -
645
@ZENODO_ORG: https://zenodo.org/record/7601136 –
#Latest_Updates
#The_Links
| Book #94
|Title: SuperHyperConnectivities
| Available at @WordPress @Preprints_org @ResearchGate @Scribd @academia @ZENODO_ORG

@Twitter @LinkedIn @Amazon @googlebooks @GooglePlay
| Publisher | –
| ISBN | –
| Print length | –
#Latest_Updates
#The_Links
| @ResearchGate:
| @academia: -
| @ZENODO_ORG:
| @googlebooks: -
| @GooglePlay: -
| @WordPress: -

SuperHyperConnectivities (Published Version)
The Link:
Posted by Dr. Henry Garrett
February -, 2023
Posted in 0097 | SuperHyperConnectivities
Tags:
Applications, Applied Mathematics, Applied Research, Cancer, Cancer’s Recognitions, Combin-
atorics, Edge, Edges, Graph Theory, Graphs, Latest Research, Literature Reviews, Modeling,
Neutrosophic Graph, Neutrosophic Graph Theory, Neutrosophic Science, Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Classes, Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Theory, neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs, Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities, Open Problems, Open Questions,
Problems, Pure Math, Pure Mathematics, Questions, Real-World Applications, Recent Re-
search, Recognitions, Research, Research Article, Research Articles, Research Book, Research
Chapter, Research Chapters, Review, SuperHyperClasses, SuperHyperEdges, SuperHyperGraph,
SuperHyperGraph Theory, SuperHyperGraphs, SuperHyperConnectivities, SuperHyperModeling,
SuperHyperVertices, Theoretical Research, Vertex, Vertices

CHAPTER 31
“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: |
Featured Tweets
“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets
649
Figure 31.1: “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets

Figure 31.2: “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets

Figure 31.3: “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets #69
























CHAPTER 32
CV
677
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · [email protected] · Manhattan, NY, USA
Henry Garrett CV
Status: Known As Henry Garrett With Highly Productive Style.
Fields: Combinatorics, Algebraic Structures, Algebraic Hyperstructures, Fuzzy

Logic
Prefers: Graph Theory, Domination, Metric Dimension, Neutrosophic Graph

Theory, Neutrosophic Domination, Lattice Theory, Groups and
Hypergroups
Activities: Traveling, Painting, Writing, Reading books and Papers
Professional Experiences
2017 - Present Continuous Member AMS
I tried to show them that Science is not only interesting, it’s beautiful and exciting.
Participating in the academic space of the largest mathematical Society gave me valuable
experiences. The use of Bulletin and Notice of the American Mathematical Society is another
benefit of this presence.
2017 - 2019 Continuous Member EMS
The use Newsletter of the European Mathematical Society is benefit of this membership.
I am interested in giving a small, though small, effect on math epidemic progress
Awards and Achievements
Sep 2022 Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to JMTCM JMTCM
Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to Journal of Mathematical Techniques and

Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Jun 2022 Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to JCTCSR JCTCSR
Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to Journal of Current Trends in Computer

Science Research(JCTCSR)
Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research(JCTCSR)
Jan 23, 2022 Award: Diploma By Neutrosophic Science International Association Neutrosophic Science International
Association
Award: Distinguished Achievements

Honorary Memebrship
Journal Referee
Sep 2022 Editorial Board Member to JMTCM JMTCM
Editorial Board Member to Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational

Mathematics(JMTCM)
Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Jun 2022 Editorial Board Member to JCTCSR JCTCSR
Editorial Board Member to Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science

Research(JCTCSR)
Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research(JCTCSR)
Publications: Articles
2023 0126 | Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition Manuscript
as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under
Available at Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd, Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn
2023 0125 | Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Manuscript
Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s
Recognition
Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy
Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010282 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1).
2023 0124 | Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).).
2023 0123 | The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Manuscript
Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers
In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph
Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1).
2023 0122 | Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Manuscript
Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010262,(doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1).
2023 0121 | Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Manuscript
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1).
2023 0120 | Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Manuscript
Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1).
2023 0119 | SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s Recognition Manuscript
In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767).
2023 0118 | The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition Manuscript
With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680).
2023 0117 | Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In Manuscript
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243).
2023 0116 | Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s Recognition Manuscript
in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s
2023 0115 | (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1).
2023 0114 | Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”,
2023 0113 | Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in Manuscript
the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClique
Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and Sub-
2023 0112 | Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling Manuscript
in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)
2023 0111 | Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Manuscript

Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”,
2023 0110 | Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic Failed Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of
2022 0109 | 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph
Garrett, Henry. “0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and
(Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN
European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European
Organization for Nuclear Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942.
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942
2022 0108 | 0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Garrett, Henry. “0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs.” CERN

Organization for Nuclear Research, https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724.
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724
2023 0107 | Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To
Preprints 2023, 2023010044
2023 0106 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled Manuscript

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010043 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1).
2022 0105 | Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs Article
and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes
Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic
Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper
Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) (2022) 242-263.
2023 0104 | Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Manuscript
Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
2023 0103 | Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Manuscript

Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints
Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”,
2023 0102 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled Manuscript

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123).
2022 0101 | Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond
Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To
2022 0100 | (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And
2022 0099 | Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling Manuscript
in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)
2022 0098 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) Manuscript

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring
10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1).
2022 0098 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) Manuscript

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, ResearchGate 2022,
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19380.94084).
2022 0097 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Manuscript

Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling
of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses

Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and
SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1).
2022 0097 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Manuscript

Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling
of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses

Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and
SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923).
2022 0096 | SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Manuscript

SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, Preprints 2022,
2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1).
2022 0096 | SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Manuscript

SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, ResearchGate
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640).
2022 0095 | Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Manuscript
and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments
Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
2022 0095 | Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Manuscript

And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments
Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”,
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641).
2022 0094 | SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Manuscript

Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1).
2022 0094 | SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Manuscript

Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966).
2022 0093 | Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic Numbers in the Setting Article
of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic
Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14.
PDF,Abstract,Issue.
2022 0092 | Recognition of the Pattern for Vertices to Make Dimension by Resolving in some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Recognition of the Pattern for Vertices to Make Dimension
by Resolving in some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.27281.51046).
2022 0091 | Regularity of Every Element to Function in the Type of Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Regularity of Every Element to Function in the Type of Domination in

Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22861.10727).
2022 0090 | Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)
Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic
2022 0089 | Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating and Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning Neutrosophic
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244).
2022 0088 | Seeking Empty Subgraphs To Determine Different Measurements in Some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Seeking Empty Subgraphs To Determine Different Measurements in Some

Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30448.53766).
2022 0087 | Impacts of Isolated Vertices To Cover Other Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Impacts of Isolated Vertices To Cover Other Vertices in Neutrosophic

Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16185.44647).
2022 0086 | Perfect Locating of All Vertices in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Perfect Locating of All Vertices in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”,
2022 0085 | Complete Connections Between Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Complete Connections Between Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0084 | Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic

2022 0083 | Single Connection Amid Vertices From Two Given Sets Partitioning Vertex Set in Some Classes Manuscript
of Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Single Connection Amid Vertices From Two Given Sets Partitioning
Vertex Set in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.32189.33764).
2022 0082 | Separate Joint-Sets Representing Separate Numbers Where Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
and Applications are Cases of Study
Henry Garrett, “Separate Joint-Sets Representing Separate Numbers Where Classes
of Neutrosophic Graphs and Applications are Cases of Study”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.22666.95686).
2022 0081 | Repetitive Joint-Sets Featuring Multiple Numbers For Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Repetitive Joint-Sets Featuring Multiple Numbers For Neutrosophic

2022 0080 | Dual-Resolving Numbers Excerpt from Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs With Some Manuscript
Applications
Henry Garrett, “Dual-Resolving Numbers Excerpt from Some Classes of Neutrosophic
Graphs With Some Applications”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14971.39200).
2022 0079 | Dual-Dominating Numbers in Neutrosophic Setting and Crisp Setting Obtained From Classes Manuscript
of Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Dual-Dominating Numbers in Neutrosophic Setting and Crisp
Setting Obtained From Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.19925.91361).
2022 0078 | Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Numbers BasedOn Endpoints In Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Numbers BasedOn Endpoints In Neutrosophic

2022 0077 | Neutrosophic Dominating Path-Coloring Numbers in New Visions of Classes of Neutrosophic Manuscript
Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Dominating Path-Coloring Numbers in New Visions of Classes
of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32151.65445).
2022 0076 | Path Coloring Numbers of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Shared Edges and Neutrosophic Manuscript
Cardinality of Edges With Some Applications from Real-World Problems
Henry Garrett, “Path Coloring Numbers of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Shared Edges
and Neutrosophic Cardinality of Edges With Some Applications from Real-World Problems”,
2022 0075 | Neutrosophic Collapsed Numbers in the Viewpoint of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Collapsed Numbers in the Viewpoint of Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0074 | Bulky Numbers of Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Neutrosophic Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Bulky Numbers of Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Neutrosophic

Edges”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24204.18564).
2022 0073 | Dense Numbers and Minimal Dense Sets of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dense Numbers and Minimal Dense Sets of Neutrosophic Graphs”,
2022 0072 | Connectivities of Neutrosophic Graphs in the terms of Crisp Cycles Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Connectivities of Neutrosophic Graphs in the terms of Crisp Cycles”,

2022 0071 | Strong Paths Defining Connectivities in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Strong Paths Defining Connectivities in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0070 | Finding Longest Weakest Paths assigning numbers to some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Longest Weakest Paths assigning numbers to some Classes of
Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35579.59689).
April 12, 2022 0069 | Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Article
Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi:
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). (http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf).
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss_journal/vol49/iss1/34).
Available at NSS, NSS Gallery, UNM Digital Repository, Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd,
Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn
2022 0068 | Relations and Notions amid Hamiltonicity and Eulerian Notions in Some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Relations and Notions amid Hamiltonicity and Eulerian Notions in Some
Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35579.59689).
2022 0067 | Eulerian Results In Neutrosophic Graphs With Applications Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Eulerian Results In Neutrosophic Graphs With Applic- ations”,

2022 0066 | Finding Hamiltonian Neutrosophic Cycles in Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Hamiltonian Neutrosophic Cycles in Classes of Neutrosophic

2022 0065 | Extending Sets Type-Results in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Extending Sets Type-Results in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13317.01767).
2022 0064 | Some Polynomials Related to Numbers in Classes of (Strong) Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Some Polynomials Related to Numbers in Classes of (Strong) Neutrosophic

2022 0063 | Finding Shortest Sequences of Consecutive Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Shortest Sequences of Consecutive Vertices in Neutrosophic

2022 0062 | Neutrosophic Girth Based On Crisp Cycle in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Girth Based On Crisp Cycle in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0061 | e-Matching Number and e-Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “e-Matching Number and e-Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0060 | Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.33630.72002).
2022 0059 | Some Results in Classes Of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Some Results in Classes Of Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022030248 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202203.0248.v1).
2022 0058 | Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.18609.86882).
2022 0057 | Fuzzy Dominating Number Based On Fuzzy Bridge And Applicaions Article
M. Hamidi, and M. Nikfar, “Fuzzy Dominating Number Based On Fuzzy

Bridge And Applicaions”, Fuzzy Systems and its Applications 4(2) (2022) 205-229
(https://doi.org/10.22034/jfsa.2022.306606.1092).
Oct 2018 0056 | The Effects of Mathematics on Computer Sciences Conference Article
M. Nikfar, “The Effects of Mathematics on Computer Sciences”, Second Conference

on the Education and Applications of Mathematics, Kermanshah, Iran, 2018
(https://en.civilica.com/doc/824659).
2022 0055 | (Failed) 1-clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “(Failed) 1-Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14241.89449).
2022 0054 | Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.36039.16800).
2022 0053 | Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.28338.68800).
2022 0052 | (Failed) 1-independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “(Failed) 1-Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30593.12643).
2022 0051 | Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022020334 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202202.0334.v2)
2022 0051 | Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31196.05768).
2022 0050 | Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022, 2022020334 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202202.0334.v1).
2022 0050 | Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.17472.81925).
2022 0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript

Henry Garrett, “(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35241.26724).
2022 0048 | Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022020343 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202202.0343.v1).
2022 0048 | Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24873.47209).
2022 0047 | Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.32265.93286).
2022 0046 | Quasi-Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.18470.60488).
2022 0045 | Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022, 2022020100 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202202.0100.v1).
2022 0045 | Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Degree in ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25460.01927).

2022 0044 | Co-Neighborhood in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-Neighborhood in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.17687.44964).
2022 0043 | Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,
2022010429 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0429.v1).
2022 0043 | Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31784.24322).
2022 0042 | Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,
2022010429 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0429.v1).
2022 0042 | Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26541.20961).
2022 0041 | Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong) Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong)
Edges”, Preprints 2022, 2022010239 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0239.v1).
2022 0041 | Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong) Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong)
Edges”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18486.83521).
2022 0040 | Three types of neutrosophic alliances based of connectedness and (strong) edges (In-Progress) Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three types of neutrosophic alliances based of connectedness and (strong)
edges (In-Progress)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27570.12480).
2022 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and
(Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints
2022, 2022010145 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0145.v1).
2022 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving
and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph”,
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18909.54244/1).
2022 0038 | Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, Preprints

2022, 2022010027 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0027.v1).
2022 0038 | Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”,

2021 0037 | Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic

Hypergraphs”, Preprints 2021, 2021120448 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0448.v1).
2021 0037 | Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic

Hypergraphs”, ResearchGate 2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13070.28483).
2021 0036 | Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript

Henry Garrett, “Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, Preprints 2021,

2021120335 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0335.v1).
2021 0036 | Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19068.46723).
2021 0035 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness”, Preprints 2021,

2021120226 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0226.v1).
2021 0035 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness”, ResearchGate

2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18563.84001).
2021 0034 | Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, Preprints 2021,
2021120177 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0177.v1).
2021 0034 | Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, ResearchGate

2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36035.73766).
2021 0033 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs #12 Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs #12”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20690.48322).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29308.46725).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21614.54085).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34040.16648).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19464.96007).
2021 0028 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14667.72481).
2021 0028 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v7).
2021 0027 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VI Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VI”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v6).
2021 0026 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-V Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-V”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v5).
2021 0025 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-IV Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-IV”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v4).
2021 0024 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-III Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-III”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v3).
2021 0023 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-II Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-II”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v2).
2021 0022 | Metric Dimension in Fuzzy Graphs and Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in Fuzzy Graphs and Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints
2021, 2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v1)
2021 0021 | Valued Number And Set Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Valued Number And Set”, Preprints 2021, 2021080229 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202108.0229.v1).
2021 0020 | Notion of Valued Set Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Notion of Valued Set”, Preprints 2021, 2021070410 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202107.0410.v1).
2021 0019 | Set And Its Operations Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Set And Its Operations”, Preprints 2021, 2021060508 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0508.v1).
2021 0018 | Metric Dimensions Of Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimensions Of Graphs”, Preprints 2021, 2021060392 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0392.v1).
2021 0017 | New Graph Of Graph Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “New Graph Of Graph”, Preprints 2021, 2021060323 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0323.v1).
2021 0016 | Numbers Based On Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Numbers Based On Edges”, Preprints 2021, 2021060315 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0315.v1).
2021 0015 | Locating And Location Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Locating And Location Number”, Preprints 2021, 2021060206 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0206.v1).
2021 0014 | Big Sets Of Vertices Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Big Sets Of Vertices”, Preprints 2021, 2021060189 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0189.v1).
2021 0013 | Matroid And Its Outlines Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matroid And Its Outlines”, Preprints 2021, 2021060146 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0146.v1).
2021 0012 | Matroid And Its Relations Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matroid And Its Relations”, Preprints 2021, 2021060080 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0080.v1).
2021 0011 | Metric Number in Dimension Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Number in Dimension”, Preprints 2021, 2021060004 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0004.v1).
2018 0010 | A Study on Domination in two Fuzzy Models Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “A Study on Domination in two Fuzzy Models”, Preprints 2018, 2018040119 (doi:
10.20944/preprints201804.0119.v2).
2019 0009 | Nikfar Domination Versus Others: Restriction, Extension Theorems and Monstrous Examples Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination Versus Others: Restriction, Extension Theorems and

Monstrous Examples”, Preprints 2019, 2019010024 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v3).
2019 0008 | Nikfar Dominations: Definitions, Theorems, and Connections Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Dominations: Definitions, Theorems, and Connections”, ResearchGate

2019 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28955.31526/1).
2019 0007 | Nikfar Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2019, 2019010024 (doi:

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v2).

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v2).
2018 0005 | The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040085
(doi: 10.20944/preprints201804.0085.v2).

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v1).
2019 0003 | Nikfar Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2019, 2019010025 (doi:

10.20944/preprints201901.0025.v1).
2018 0002 | Vertex Domination in t-Norm Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Vertex Domination in t-Norm Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040119 (doi:
10.20944/preprints201804.0119.v1).
2018 0001 | The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040085
(doi: 10.20944/preprints201804.0085.v1).
Publications: Books
2023 0069 | SuperHyperMatching Amazon
ASIN : B0BSDPXX1P Publisher : Independently published (January 15, 2023) Language

: English Paperback : 582 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8373872683 Item Weight : 3.6 pounds
Dimensions : 8.5 x 1.37 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BSDC1L66 Publisher : Independently published (January 16, 2023) Language
: English Hardcover : 548 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8373875424 Item Weight : 3.3 pounds
2023 0068 | Failed SuperHyperClique Amazon
ASIN : B0BRZ67NYN Publisher : Independently published (January 10, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRYZTK24 Publisher : Independently published (January 10, 2023) Language
2023 0067 | SuperHyperClique Amazon
ASIN : B0BRWK4S1Y Publisher : Independently published (January 8, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRM24YJX Publisher : Independently published (January 8, 2023) Language :
English Hardcover : 388 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8373041935 Item Weight : 2.36 pounds Dimensions
: 8.25 x 1.1 x 11 inches
2023 0066 | Failed SuperHyperStable Amazon
ASIN : B0BRNG7DC8 Publisher : Independently published (January 4, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRLVN39L Publisher : Independently published (January 4, 2023) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.91 x 11 inches
2023 0065 | SuperHyperStable Amazon
ASIN : B0BRDG5Z4Y Publisher : Independently published (January 2, 2023) Language

Dimensions : 8.27 x 0.7 x 11.69 inches
ASIN : B0BRJPG56M Publisher : Independently published (January 2, 2023) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.87 x 11 inches
2023 0064 | Failed SuperHyperForcing Amazon
ASIN : B0BRH5B4QM Publisher : Independently published (January 1, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRGX4DBJ Publisher : Independently published (January 1, 2023) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.98 x 11 inches
2022 0063 | SuperHyperForcing Amazon
ASIN : B0BRDG1KN1 Publisher : Independently published (December 30, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BRDFFQMF Publisher : Independently published (December 30, 2022) Language
2022 0062 | SuperHyperAlliances Amazon
ASIN : B0BR6YC3HG Publisher : Independently published (December 27, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BR7CBTC6 Publisher : Independently published (December 27, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.64 x 11 inches
2022 0061 | SuperHyperGraphs Amazon
ASIN : B0BR1NHY4Z Publisher : Independently published (December 24, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 117 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8371090133 Item Weight : 13 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.28 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BQXTHTXY Publisher : Independently published (December 24, 2022) Language :
English Hardcover : 117 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8371093240 Item Weight : 12.6 ounces Dimensions
: 8.25 x 0.47 x 11 inches
2022 0060 | Neut. SuperHyperEdges Amazon
ASIN : B0BNH11ZDY Publisher : Independently published (November 27, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.26 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BNGZGPP6 Publisher : Independently published (November 27, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.45 x 11 inches
2022 0059 | Neutrosophic k-Number Amazon
ASIN : B0BF3P5X4N Publisher : Independently published (September 14, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BF2XCDZM Publisher : Independently published (September 14, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.57 x 11 inches
2022 0058 | Neutrosophic Schedule Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJWJJZF Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBJLPWKH Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.35 x 11 inches
2022 0057 | Neutrosophic Wheel Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJRHXXG Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBK3KG82 Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.65 x 11 inches
2022 0056 | Neutrosophic t-partite Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJLZCHS Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBJDFGJS Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.75 x 11 inches
2022 0055 | Neutrosophic Bipartite Amazon

ASIN : B0BB5Z9GHW Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBGG9RDZ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.72 x 11 inches
2022 0054 | Neutrosophic Star Amazon
ASIN : B0BB5ZHSSZ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 215 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847794374 Item Weight : 1.4 pounds Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.51 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BBC4BL9P Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.7 x 11 inches
2022 0053 | Neutrosophic Cycle Amazon
ASIN : B0BB62NZQK Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB65QMKQ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1 x 11 inches
2022 0052 | Neutrosophic Path Amazon
ASIN : B0BB67WCXL Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 315 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847730570 Item Weight : 2 pounds Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.74 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BB5Z9FXL Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.93 x 11 inches
2022 0051 | Neutrosophic Complete Amazon
ASIN : B0BB6191KN Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB5RRQN7 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.73 x 11 inches
2022 0050 | Neutrosophic Dominating Amazon
ASIN : B0BB5QV8WT Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB61WL9M Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.03 x 11 inches
2022 0049 | Neutrosophic Resolving Amazon
ASIN : B0BBCJMRH8 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBCB6DFC Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.06 x 11 inches
2022 0048 | Neutrosophic Stable Amazon

ASIN : B0B7QGTNFW Publisher : Independently published (July 28, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 133 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8842880348 Item Weight : 14.6 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.32 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B7QJWQ35 Publisher : Independently published (July 28, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.51 x 11 inches
2022 0047 | Neutrosophic Total Amazon
ASIN : B0B7GLB23F Publisher : Independently published (July 25, 2022) Language : English
Paperback : 137 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8842357741 Item Weight : 14.9 ounces Dimensions : 8.5
x 0.33 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B6XVTDYC Publisher : Independently published (July 25, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.52 x 11 inches
2022 0046 | Neutrosophic Perfect Amazon
ASIN : B0B7CJHCYZ Publisher : Independently published (July 22, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.3 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B7C732Z1 Publisher : Independently published (July 22, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 127 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8842028757 Item Weight : 13.6 ounces Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.49 x 11 inches
2022 0045 | Neutrosophic Joint Set Amazon
ASIN : B0B6L8WJ77 Publisher : Independently published (July 15, 2022) Language : English
Paperback : 139 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8840802199 Item Weight : 15 ounces Dimensions : 8.5 x
0.33 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B6L9GJWR Publisher : Independently published (July 15, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.52 x 11 inches
August 30, 0044 | Neutrosophic Duality GLOBAL

2022 KNOWLEDGE -
Publishing
House&Amazon&Google
Scholar&UNM
Neutrosophic Duality, GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House:
GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131
United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0
Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing
ASIN : B0B4SJ8Y44 Publisher : Independently published (June 22, 2022) Language : English
Paperback : 115 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8837647598 Item Weight : 12.8 ounces Dimensions : 8.5
x 0.27 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B46B4CXT Publisher : Independently published (June 22, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 115 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8837649981 Item Weight : 12.5 ounces Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.46 x 11 inches
GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House: http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf
UNM: http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf
Google Scholar: https://books.google.com/books?id=dWWkEAAAQBAJ
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B4SJ8Y44
Hardcover: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B46B4CXT
2022 0043 | Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Amazon
ASIN : B0B3F2BZC4 Publisher : Independently published (June 7, 2022) Language : English

Paperback : 161 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8834894469 Item Weight : 1.08 pounds Dimensions : 8.5
x 0.38 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B3FGPGQ3 Publisher : Independently published (June 7, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.57 x 11 inches
2022 0042 | Neutrosophic Density Amazon
ASIN : B0B19CDX7W Publisher : Independently published (May 15, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.35 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B14PLPGL Publisher : Independently published (May 15, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.53 x 11 inches
2022 0041 | Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Google Commerce Ltd
Publisher Infinite Study Seller Google Commerce Ltd Published on Apr 27, 2022 Pages
30 Features Original pages Best for web, tablet, phone, eReader Language English Genres
Antiques & Collectibles / Reference Content protection This content is DRM free GooglePlay
Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Front Cover Henry
Garrett Infinite Study, 27 Apr 2022 - Antiques & Collectibles - 30 pages GoogleBooks
Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”,
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 893 10.5281/zenodo.6456413).
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf).
2022 0040 | Neutrosophic Connectivity Amazon
ASIN : B09YQJG2ZV Publisher : Independently published (April 26, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.29 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09YQJG2DZ Publisher : Independently published (April 26, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.48 x 11 inches
2022 0039 | Neutrosophic Cycles Amazon
ASIN : B09X4KVLQG Publisher : Independently published (April 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09X4LZ3HL Publisher : Independently published (April 8, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 169 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8449144157 Item Weight : 1.09 pounds Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.59 x 11 inches
2022 0038 | Girth in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09WQ5PFV8 Publisher : Independently published (March 29, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09WQQGXPZ Publisher : Independently published (March 29, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.58 x 11 inches
2022 0037 | Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09W7FT8GM Publisher : Independently published (March 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09W4HF99L Publisher : Independently published (March 22, 2022) Language :
English Hardcover : 153 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8437539057 Item Weight : 1 pounds Dimensions
: 8.25 x 0.55 x 11 inches
2022 0036 | Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graph Amazon
ASIN : B09TV82Q7T Publisher : Independently published (March 7, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09TZBPWJG Publisher : Independently published (March 7, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.56 x 11 inches
2022 0035 | Independence in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09TF227GG Publisher : Independently published (February 27, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 149 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8424231681 Item Weight : 1 pounds Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.35 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09TL1LSKD Publisher : Independently published (February 27, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.54 x 11 inches
2022 0034 | Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09SW2YVKB Publisher : Independently published (February 18, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.35 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09SWLK7BG Publisher : Independently published (February 18, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.54 x 11 inches
2022 0033 | Neutrosophic Quasi-Order Amazon
ASIN : B09S3RXQ5C Publisher : Independently published (February 8, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.26 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09S232DQH Publisher : Independently published (February 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.43 x 11 inches
Jan 29, 2022 0032 | Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs E-

publishing&Amazon&Google
Scholar&UNM
Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs, E-publishing:
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States
ISBN 978-1-59973-725-6
Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: Educational
ASIN : B0BBCQJQG5 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language
ASIN : B0BBC4BJZ5 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 257 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847567497 Item Weight : 1.61 pounds Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.8 x 11 inches
E-publishing: Educational Publisher: http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf
UNM: http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf
Google Scholar:https://books.google.com/books?id=cWWkEAAAQBAJ
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BBCQJQG5
Hardcover: https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Neutrosophic-Graphs-Henry-
Garrett/dp/B0BBC4BJZ5
2022 0031 | Neutrosophic Alliances Amazon

ASIN : B09RB5XLVB Publisher : Independently published (January 26, 2022) Language :
: 8.5 x 0.21 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09R39MTSW Publisher : Independently published (January 26, 2022) Language :

: 8.25 x 0.4 x 11 inches
2022 0030 | Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Amazon
ASIN : B09PMBKVD4 Publisher : Independently published (January 7, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.19 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09PP8VZ3D Publisher : Independently published (January 7, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.38 x 11 inches
2022 0029 | Collections of Articles Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHHDDQK Publisher : Independently published (January 2, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.47 x 11 inches
2022 0028 | Collections of Math Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHBWT5D Publisher : Independently published (January 1, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.28 x 11 inches
2022 0027 | Collections of US Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHBT924 Publisher : Independently published (December 31, 2021) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.81 x 11 inches
2021 0026 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Amazon
ASIN : B09NRD25MG Publisher : Independently published (December 20, 2021) Language

: English Paperback : 67 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8787858174 Item Weight : 8.2 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.16 x 11 inches Language : English
-
2021 0025 | Simple Ideas Amazon
ASIN : B09MYTN6NT Publisher : Independently published (December 9, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.11 x 11 inches
-
2021 0024 | Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09MYXVNF9 Publisher : Independently published (December 7, 2021) Language

: English Paperback : 55 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8780775652 Item Weight : 7 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0023 | List Amazon
ASIN : B09M554XCL Publisher : Independently published (November 20, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.12 x 11 inches
-
2021 0022 | Theorems Amazon
ASIN : B09KDZXGPR Publisher : Independently published (October 28, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.12 x 11 inches
-
2021 0021 | Dimension Amazon
ASIN : B09K2BBQG7 Publisher : Independently published (October 25, 2021) Language :

English Paperback : 55 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8753577146 Item Weight : 7 ounces Dimensions :
8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0020 | Beyond The Graph Theory Amazon
ASIN : B09KDZXGPR Publisher : Independently published (October 28, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.12 x 11 inches
-
2021 0019 | Located Heart And Memories Amazon
ASIN : B09F14PL8T Publisher : Independently published (August 31, 2021) Language :

8.5 x 0.14 x 11 inches
-
2021 0018 | Number Graphs And Numbers Amazon
ASIN : B099BQRSF8 Publisher : Independently published (July 14, 2021) Language : English
Paperback : 32 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8537474135 Item Weight : 4.8 ounces Dimensions : 8.5 x
0.08 x 11 inches
-
2021 0017 | First Place Is Reserved Amazon
ASIN : B098CWD5PT Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0016 | Detail-oriented Groups And Ideas Amazon
ASIN : B098CYYG3Q Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.17 x 11 inches
-
2021 0015 | Definition And Its Necessities Amazon
ASIN : B098DHRJFD Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.19 x 11 inches
-
2021 0014 | Words And Their Directionss Amazon
ASIN : B098CYS8G2 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

8.5 x 0.16 x 11 inches
-
2021 0013 | Tattooed Heart But Forever Amazon

ASIN : B098CR8HM6 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.11 x 11 inches
-
2021 0012 | Metric Number In Dimension Amazon
ASIN : B0913597TV Publication date : March 24, 2021 Language : English File size : 28445
KB Text-to-Speech : Enabled Enhanced typesetting : Enabled X-Ray : Not Enabled Word
Wise : Not Enabled Print length : 48 pages Lending : Not Enabled Kindle
-
2021 0011 | Domination Theory And Beyond Amazon
ASIN : B098DMMZ87 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language

-
2021 0010 | Vital Glory Amazon
ASIN : B08PVNJYRM Publication date : December 6, 2020 Language : English File size
: 1544 KB Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited Text-to-Speech : Enabled Screen Reader :
Supported Enhanced typesetting : Enabled X-Ray : Not Enabled Word Wise : Enabled Print
length : 24 pages Lending : Enabled Kindle
-
2021 0009 | Análisis de modelos y orientación más allá AmazonUK&MoreBooks
Análisis de modelos y orientación más allá Planteamiento y problemas en dos modelos

Ediciones Nuestro Conocimiento (2021-04-06) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59902-
2 ISBN-10:6203599026EAN:9786203599022Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:El enfoque para la
resolución de problemas es una selección obvia para hacer la investigación y el análisis de la
situación que puede provocar las perspectivas vagas que queremos no ser para extraer ideas
creativas y nuevas que queremos ser. Estudio simultáneamente dos modelos. Este estudio se
basa tanto en la investigación como en la discusión que el autor piensa que puede ser útil
para entender y hacer crecer nuestra fantası́a y la realidad juntas.Publishing house: Ediciones
Nuestro Conocimiento Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett
Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90
Keywords:Dos modelos, optimización de rutas y transporte, Two Models, Optimizing Routes
and Transportation
MoreBooks
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/análisis-de-modelos-y-orientación-más-
allá/isbn/978-620-3-59902-2
Product details Publisher : Ediciones Nuestro Conocimiento (6 April 2021) Language :
Spanish ISBN-10 : 6203599026 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599022 Dimensions : 15 x 0.4 x 22 cm
Paperback:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Análisis-modelos-orientación-allá-Planteamiento/dp/6203599026
2021 0008 | Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами Amazon&MoreBooks

Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами Подход и проблемы в двух моде-
лях Sciencia Scripts (2021-04-06) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59908-4 ISBN-
10:6203599085EAN:9786203599084Book language: Russian Blurb/Shorttext:Подход к реше-
нию проблем является очевидным выбором для проведения исследований и анализа си-
туации, которая может вызвать смутные перспективы, которыми мы не хотим быть для
извлечения творческих и новых идей, которыми мы хотим быть. Я одновременно изучаю
две модели. Это исследование основано как на исследовании, так и на обсуждении, кото-
рое, по мнению автора, может быть полезным для понимания и развития наших фантазий
и реальности вместе.Publishing house: Sciencia Scripts Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com
By (author) : Генри Гарретт Number of pages:68Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available
Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Две модели, оптимизация маршрутов и
транспорта, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/анализ-моделей-и-руководство-за-
пределами/isbn/978-620-3-59908-4
Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами: Подход и проблемы в двух моделях

(Russian Edition) Publisher : Sciencia Scripts (April 6, 2021) Language : Russian Paperback :
68 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599085 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599084 Item Weight : 5.3 ounces Dimensions
: 5.91 x 0.16 x 8.66 inches
2021 0007 | Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além Abordagem e Problemas em Dois Modelos Edições
Nosso Conhecimento (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59907-7 ISBN-
10:6203599077EAN:9786203599077Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:A abordagem para resolver
problemas é uma seleção óbvia para fazer pesquisa e análise da situação, que pode trazer
as perspectivas vagas que queremos não ser para extrair idéias criativas e novas idéias que
queremos ser. Eu estudo simultaneamente dois modelos. Este estudo é baseado tanto na
pesquisa como na discussão que o autor pensa que pode ser útil para compreender e fazer crescer
juntos a nossa fantasia e realidade.Publishing house: Edições Nosso Conhecimento Website:
https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published
on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Dois Modelos,
Otimização de Rotas e Transporte, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/análise-e-orientação-de-modelos-
além/isbn/978-620-3-59907-7
Henry Garrett Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além (Paperback) About this item
Product details
A abordagem para resolver problemas é uma seleção óbvia para fazer pesquisa e análise da
situação, que pode trazer as perspectivas vagas que queremos não ser para extrair idéias
criativas e novas idéias que queremos ser. Eu estudo simultaneamente dois modelos. Este
estudo é baseado tanto na pesquisa como na discussão que o autor pensa que pode ser útil
para compreender e fazer crescer juntos a nossa fantasia e realidade. Análise e Orientação de
Modelos Além (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product information. Manufacturers,
suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not verified it. See our disclaimer
Specifications
Language Portuguese Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number
of Pages 64 Author Henry Garrett Title Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além ISBN-13
9786203599077 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00
x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599077 Walmart
Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além: Abordagem e Problemas em Dois Modelos

(Portuguese Edition) Publisher : Edições Nosso Conhecimento (April 6, 2021) Language :
Portuguese Paperback : 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599077 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599077 Item Weight
: 3.67 ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0006 | Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza Amazon&MoreBooks

Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza Podejście i problemy w dwóch
modelach Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-
59906-0 ISBN-10:6203599069EAN:9786203599060Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:Podejście do
rozwia˛zywania problemów jest oczywistym wyborem do prowadzenia badań i analizowania
sytuacji, które moga˛ wywo lywać niejasne perspektywy, których nie chcemy dla wydobycia
kreatywnych i nowych pomys lów, które chcemy. I jednocześnie studiować dwa modele.
Badanie to oparte jest zarówno na badaniach jak i dyskusji, które zdaniem autora moga˛
być przydatne do zrozumienia i rozwoju naszych fantazji i rzeczywistości razem.Publishing
house: Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry
Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics
Price:39.90 Keywords:Dwa modele, optymalizacja tras i transportu, Two Models, Optimizing
Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/analizy-modelowe-i-wytyczne-wykraczaja˛ce-
poza/isbn/978-620-3-59906-0
Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza: Podejście i problemy w dwóch modelach
(Polish Edition) Publisher : Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza (April 6, 2021) Language : Polish
Paperback : 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599069 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599060 Item Weight : 3.67
ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0005 | Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna Amazon&MoreBooks
Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna Aanpak en problemen in twee modellen

Uitgeverij Onze Kennis (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59905-3
ISBN-10:6203599050EAN:9786203599053Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:De aanpak voor het
oplossen van problemen is een voor de hand liggende keuze voor het doen van onderzoek en het
analyseren van de situatie die de vage perspectieven kan oproepen die we niet willen zijn voor
het extraheren van creatieve en nieuwe ideeën die we willen zijn. Ik bestudeer tegelijkertijd twee
modellen. Deze studie is gebaseerd op zowel onderzoek als discussie waarvan de auteur denkt dat
ze nuttig kunnen zijn voor het begrijpen en laten groeien van onze fantasieën en de werkelijkheid
samen.Publishing house: Uitgeverij Onze Kennis Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By
(author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category:
Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Twee modellen, optimalisering van routes en transport,
Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna: Aanpak en problemen in twee modellen (Dutch
Edition) Publisher : Uitgeverij Onze Kennis (April 6, 2021) Language : Dutch Paperback : 64
pages ISBN-10 : 6203599050 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599053 Item Weight : 3.99 ounces Dimensions
: 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0004 | Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre Approccio e problemi in due modelli Edizioni
Sapienza (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59904-6 ISBN-
10:6203599042EAN:9786203599046Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:L’approccio per risolvere
i problemi è una selezione ovvia per fare ricerca e analisi della situazione che può suscitare
le prospettive vaghe che non vogliamo essere per estrarre idee creative e nuove che vogliamo
essere. Studio contemporaneamente due modelli. Questo studio si basa sia sulla ricerca che
sulla discussione che l’autore pensa possa essere utile per capire e far crescere insieme la nostra
fantasia e la realtà.Publishing house: Edizioni Sapienza Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com
By (author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:60Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available
Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Due modelli, ottimizzazione dei percorsi e del
trasporto, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks Henry Garrett Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre (Paperback) About this item
Product details
L’approccio per risolvere i problemi è una selezione ovvia per fare ricerca e analisi della
situazione che può suscitare le prospettive vaghe che non vogliamo essere per estrarre idee
creative e nuove che vogliamo essere. Studio contemporaneamente due modelli. Questo studio
si basa sia sulla ricerca che sulla discussione che l’autore pensa possa essere utile per capire e far
crescere insieme la nostra fantasia e la realtà. Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre (Paperback) We
aim to show you accurate product information. Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide
what you see here, and we have not verified it. See our disclaimer Specifications
Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number of Pages 60 Author
Henry Garrett Title Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre ISBN-13 9786203599046 Publication Date
April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00 x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10
6203599042 Walmart
Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre: Approccio e problemi in due modelli (Italian Edition)
Publisher : Edizioni Sapienza (April 6, 2021) Language : Italian Paperback : 60 pages ISBN-10
: 6203599042 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599046 Item Weight : 3.53 ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.14 x
8.66 inches
2021 0003 | Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà Approche et problèmes dans deux
modèles Editions Notre Savoir (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher eligible for voucher
ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59903-9 ISBN-10:6203599034EAN:9786203599039Book language: French
Blurb/Shorttext:L’approche pour résoudre les problèmes est une sélection évidente pour faire
la recherche et l’analyse de la situation qui peut éliciter les perspectives vagues que nous ne
voulons pas être pour extraire des idées créatives et nouvelles que nous voulons être. J’étudie
simultanément deux modèles. Cette étude est basée à la fois sur la recherche et la discussion,
ce qui, selon l’auteur, peut être utile pour comprendre et développer nos fantasmes et la réalité
ensemble.Publishing house: Editions Notre Savoir Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By
(author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category:
Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation, Deux
modèles, optimisation des itinéraires et des transports
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/analyses-de-modèles-et-orientations-au-
delà/isbn/978-620-3-59903-9
Henry Garrett Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà (Paperback) About this item
Product details
L’approche pour résoudre les problèmes est une sélection évidente pour faire la recherche et
l’analyse de la situation qui peut éliciter les perspectives vagues que nous ne voulons pas être
pour extraire des idées créatives et nouvelles que nous voulons être. J’étudie simultanément
deux modèles. Cette étude est basée à la fois sur la recherche et la discussion, ce qui, selon
l’auteur, peut être utile pour comprendre et développer nos fantasmes et la réalité ensemble.
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product
information. Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not
verified it. See our disclaimer Specifications
Language French Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number of
Pages 64 Author Henry Garrett Title Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà ISBN-13
9786203599039 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00
x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599034 Walmart
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà: Approche et problèmes dans deux modèles

(French Edition) Publisher : Editions Notre Savoir (April 6, 2021) Language : French Paperback
: 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599034 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599039 Item Weight : 3.67 ounces
Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0002 | Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus Amazon | MoreBooks |
Walmart | eBay
eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59901-5 ISBN-
10:6203599018EAN:9786203599015Book language: German Blurb/Shorttext:Die
Herangehensweise zur Lösung von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl für die
Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen,
für die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann.
Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als
auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt, dass sie für das Verständnis und das
Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realität nützlich sein kann.Publishing house: Verlag
Unser Wissen Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett Number
of pages:68Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90
Keywords:Zwei Modelle, Optimierung von Routen und Transport, Two Models, Optimizing
Routes and Transportation
MoreBooksHenry Garrett Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus (Paperback)
About this item
Product details
Die Herangehensweise zur Lösung von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl für die
Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen,
für die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann.
Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als
auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt, dass sie für das Verständnis und das
Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realität nützlich sein kann. Modell-Analysen und
Anleitungen darüber hinaus (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product information.
Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not verified it.
See our disclaimer Specifications
Language German Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number
of Pages 68 Author Henry Garrett Title Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus
ISBN-13 9786203599015 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W
x H) 9.00 x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599018
Walmart
Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing. Item specifics Condition: New: A new, unread,
unused book in perfect condition with no missing or damaged pages. See the ... Read
moreabout the condition ISBN: 9786203599015 EAN: 9786203599015 Publication Year: 2021
Type: Textbook Format: Paperback Language: German Publication Name: Modell-Analysen
Und Anleitungen Daruber Hinaus Item Height: 229mm Author: Henry Garrett Publisher:
Verlag Unser Wissen Item Width: 152mm Subject: Mathematics Item Weight: 113g Number of
Pages: 68 Pages About this product Product Information Die Herangehensweise zur Loesung
von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl fur die Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die
die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen, fur die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen
Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann. Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese
Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt,
dass sie fur das Verstandnis und das Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realitat nutzlich
sein kann. Product Identifiers Publisher Verlag Unser Wissen ISBN-13 9786203599015 eBay
Product ID (ePID) 11049032082 Product Key Features Publication Name Modell-Analysen
Und Anleitungen Daruber Hinaus Format Paperback Language German Subject Mathematics
Publication Year 2021 Type Textbook Author Henry Garrett Number of Pages 68 Pages
Dimensions Item Height 229mm Item Width 152mm Item Weight 113g Additional Product
Features Title_Author Henry Garrett
eBay
Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus: Ansatz und Probleme in zwei Modellen
(German Edition) Publisher : Verlag Unser Wissen (April 6, 2021) Language : German
Paperback : 68 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599018 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599015 Item Weight : 3.99
ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.16 x 8.66 inches Paperback
2021 0001 | Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond Amazon&MoreBooks

Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond Approach and Problems in Two Models LAP
LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2020-12-02 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-19506-
4 ISBN-10:6203195065EAN:9786203195064Book language: English Blurb/Shorttext:Approach
for solving problems is an obvious selection for doing research and analysis the situation
which may elicit the vague perspectives which we want not to be for extracting creative
and new ideas which we want to be. I simultaneously study two models. This study is based
both research and discussion which the author thinks that may be useful for understanding
and growing our fantasizing and reality together.Publishing house: LAP LAMBERT
Academic Publishing Website: https://www.lap-publishing.com/ By (author) : Henry Garrett
Number of pages:52Published on:2020-12-02Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90
Keywords:Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond: Approach and Problems in Two Models Publisher :
LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (December 2, 2020) Language : English Paperback : 52
pages ISBN-10 : 6203195065 ISBN-13 : 978-6203195064 Item Weight : 3.39 ounces Dimensions
: 5.91 x 0.12 x 8.66 inches
Participating in Seminars
I’ve participated in all virtual conferences which are listed below [Some of them without selective process].
–https://web.math.princeton.edu/ pds/onlinetalks/talks.html
...
Also, I’ve participated in following events [Some of them without selective process]:
-The Hidden NORMS seminar

-Talk Math With Your Friends (TMWYF)
-MATHEMATICS COLLOQUIUM: https://www.csulb.edu/mathematics-statistics/mathematics-colloquium
-Lathisms: Cafe Con Leche
-Big Math network
...
I’m in mailing list in following [Some of them without selective process] organizations:
-[Algebraic-graph-theory] AGT Seminar (lists-uwaterloo-ca)

-Combinatorics Lectures Online (https://web.math.princeton.edu/ pds/onlinetalks/talks.html)
-Women in Combinatorics
-CMSA-Seminar (unsw-au)
-OURFA2M2 Online Undergraduate Resource Fair for the Advancement and Alliance of Marginalized Mathematicians
...
Social Accounts
I’ve listed my accounts below.
-My website [Covering all my contributions containing articles and books as free access to download with PDF
extension and more]: https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com
-Amazon [Some of my all books, here]: https://www.amzn.com/author/drhenrygarrett
-Twitter: @DrHenryGarrett (www.twitter.com/DrHenryGarrett)
– ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henry-Garrett-2
-Academia: https://independent.academia.edu/drhenrygarrett/
-Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/user/596815491/Henry-Garrett
-Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=enuser=SUjFCmcAAAAJviewo p = listw orkssortby = pubdate
− LinkedIn : https : //www.linkedin.com/in/drhenrygarrett/

References
2017-2022 Dr. Henry Garrett WEBSITE
Department of Mathematics, Independent Researcher, Manhattan, NY, USA.

E-mail address: [email protected]
2017-2022 Dr. Henry Garrett WEBSITE
Department of Mathematics, Independent Researcher, Manhattan, NY, USA.

E-mail address: [email protected]
DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com · Twitter.com/DrHenryGarrett

Super Hyper Connectivities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Super Hyper Connectivities

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

Super Hyper Connectivities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

[email protected] · Manhattan, NY, USA

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Dr. Henry Garrett

4 New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme Recognition As Neut-

6 Motivation and Contributions 37

9 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 175

10 General Extreme Results 273

11 Extreme Applications in Cancer’s Extreme Recognition 317

12 Case 1: The Initial Extreme Steps Toward Extreme SuperHyperBipartite

13 Case 2: The Increasing Extreme Steps Toward Extreme SuperHyperMulti-

14 Open Problems 323

15 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 325

16 Neutrosophic SuperHyperConnectivities 331

17 Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph By

20 Motivation and Contributions 345

22 Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities 359

23 Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 487

24 General Neutrosophic Results 587

25 Neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 631

26 Case 1: The Initial Neutrosophic Steps Toward Neutrosophic SuperHyper-

27 Case 2: The Increasing Neutrosophic Steps Toward Neutrosophic SuperHy-

28 Open Problems 637

29 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 639

30 Books’ Contributions 645

31 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets 649

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

8.1 The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Extreme Notions of Extreme

8.17 The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperConnectivities in the

9.1 an Extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Extreme SuperHyperCon-

12.1 an Extreme SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme SuperHyper-

13.1 an Extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Extreme SuperHy-

22.1 The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Neutrosophic Notions of

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

22.10The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperConnectivities in the

23.1 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic SuperHy-

26.1 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

27.1 a Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Neutrosophic

31.1 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

31.2 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

7.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges

12.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges

13.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges

21.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges

26.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges

27.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges

sophic SuperHyperEdge; an Extreme SuperHyperConnectivities SuperHyperPolynomial C(N SHG)

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

any SuperHyperConnectivities but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperConnectivities.

The following references are cited by chapters.

[Ref136] Henry Garrett, “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition As Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

New Ideas On Super Disruptions In Cancer’s Extreme Recognition As Neutrosophic Super-