in this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable. In this research article, there are some research segments for ``Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable'' about some researches on neutrosophic SuperHyperStable. With researches on the basic properties, the research article starts to make neutrosophic SuperHyperStable theory more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStable'' $\mathcal{I}_n(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an SuperHyperStable and Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable. 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 Recognitions'' 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 Recognitions''. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and ``Cancer's Recognitions''. 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``SuperHyperStable'' $\mathcal{I}(NSHG)$ for a SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. It's useful to define a ``neutrosophic'' version of an SuperHyperStable. Since there's more ways to get type-results to make an SuperHyperStable more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, there's a need to ``redefine'' the notion of an ``SuperHyperStable''. 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 an SuperHyperStable. It's redefined a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable 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 an SuperHyperStable. 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 SuperHyperStable, then it's officially called an ``SuperHyperStable'' but otherwise, it isn't an SuperHyperStable. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled an ``SuperHyperStable''. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on an SuperHyperStable. For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, there's a need to ``redefine'' the notion of a ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStable'' and a ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStable''. 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 an SuperHyperStable are redefined to an ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStable'' 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperStable more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are ``neutrosophic SuperHyperPath'', ``neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle'', ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStar'', ``neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite'', ``neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite'', and ``neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel'' if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStable'' where it's the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperStable amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from an SuperHyperStable.] SuperHyperStable. 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 SuperHyperCycle 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 Recognitions'' 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(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperStable or the strongest SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperStable, called SuperHyperStable, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, 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 SuperHyperCycle. There isn't any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it's the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn't form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

In this research, Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperStable $\mathcal{I}(NSHG)$ for a SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common; a ``neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable'' $\mathcal{I}_n(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there's a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an extreme SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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 SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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; an extreme SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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 coefficient; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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-SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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-SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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 $\delta-$SuperHyperMatching is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ there are $|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta;$ and $ |S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive; a neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperMatching is a maximal neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S$ there are: $|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta;$ and $ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive It's useful to define a ``neutrosophic'' version of a SuperHyperMatching . Since there's more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperMatching more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, there's a need to ``redefine'' the notion of a ``SuperHyperMatching ''. A basic familiarity with Extreme SuperHyperMatching theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

I propose a new strategy to suppress human cancer completely with two entirely new drug compounds exploiting cancer's Warburg effect characterized by a defective mitochondrial aerobic respiration, substituted for by cytosolic aerobic fermentation/glycolysis of D-(+)-glucose into L-(+)-lactic acid. The two essentially new drugs compound 1 [P(op)T(est)162] and compound 3 (PT167) represent new highly symmetric, four-bladed propeller-shaped polyammonium cations. The in vitro antineoplastic highly efficacious drug compound 3 represents a covalent combination of compound 1 and compound 2 (PT166). The intermediate drug compound 2 is an entirely new colchic(in)oid derivative synthesized from colchicine. Compound 2's structure was determined by X-ray crystallography. Compound 1 and compound 3 were active in vitro versus 60 human cancer cell lines of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Developmental Therapeutics Program (DTP) 60-cancer cell testing. Compound 1 and compound 3 both not only stop the growth of cancer cells to ±0% (cancerostatic effect), but completely kill nearly all 60 cancer cells to a level of almost −100% (tumoricidal effect). Compound 1 and compound 3 induce mitochondrial apoptosis (under cytochrome c release) in all cancer cells tested by (re)activating (in most cancers impaired) p53 function which results in a decrease of cancer's dysregulated cyclin D1 and an induction of the cell cycle-halting cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21^Waf1/p21^Cip1.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperClique'' $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Extreme SuperHyperGraphs theory, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, new setting is introduced for assuming a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``SuperHyperClique'' $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme SuperHyperClique theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperClique'' $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, SuperHyperGraphs theory, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, the extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme SuperHyperGirth, is up. $E_1$ and $E_3$ are some empty extreme SuperHyperEdges but $E_2$ is a loop extreme SuperHyperEdge and $E_4$ is an extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there's only one extreme SuperHyperEdge, namely, $E_4.$ The extreme SuperHyperVertex, $V_3$ is extreme isolated means that there's no extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an extreme endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, $V_3,$ is excluded in every given extreme SuperHyperGirth. $ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=\{E_i\}~\text{is an extreme SuperHyperGirth.} \ \ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=jz^i~\text{is an extreme SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.} \ \ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=\{V_i\}~\text{is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth.} \ \ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=jz^I~{\small\text{is an extreme R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.}} $ The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], is the extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], is an extreme SuperHyperGirth $\mathcal{C}(ESHG)$ for an extreme SuperHyperGraph $ESHG:(V,E)$ 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 SuperHyperCycle. There are not only four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGirth isn't up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperGirth 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 SuperHyperGirth isn't up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], isn't the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], is an extreme SuperHyperGirth $\mathcal{C}(ESHG)$ for an extreme 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 SuperHyperCycle given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet called the extreme SuperHyperGirth and it's an extreme SuperHyperGirth . 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 SuperHyperCycle. There are only less than four extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet, thus the obvious extreme SuperHyperGirth, is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperGirth, is: ,is the extreme SuperHyperSet, is: 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 extreme SuperHyperGirth amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth , is only and only. A basic familiarity with extreme SuperHyperGirth theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and extreme SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, is up. $E_1$ and $E_3$ are some empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but $E_2$ is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and $E_4$ is an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there's only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, $E_4.$ The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, $V_3$ is neutrosophic isolated means that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as an neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, $V_3,$ is excluded in every given neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. $ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=\{E_i\}~\text{is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth.} \ \ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=jz^i~\text{is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.} \ \ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=\{V_i\}~\text{is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth.} \ \ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=jz^I~{\small\text{is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.}} $ The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth $\mathcal{C}(ESHG)$ for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $ESHG:(V,E)$ is an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there's only one neutrosophic consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There are not only four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth isn't up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], doesn't have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth 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 SuperHyperGirth. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth $\mathcal{C}(ESHG)$ for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $ESHG:(V,E)$ is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there's only one neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth and it's an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth . Since it 's the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an 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 SuperHyperCycle. There are only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, is: ,is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is: 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth , is only and only. A basic familiarity with neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

New ideas on the framework of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph for different styles of Neutrosophic SuperHyper-Wheel and Neutrosophic SuperHyper-Star are introduced. More instances and more clarifications alongside sufficient references are featured with a specific type of independency of SuperHyperVertices.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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 SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ 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. It's useful to define a ``neutrosophic'' version of a SuperHyperMatching . Since there's more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperMatching more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, there's a need to ``redefine'' the notion of a ``SuperHyperMatching ''. A basic familiarity with neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching theory, SuperHyperGraphs theory, and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

New ideas on the framework of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph for different styles of Neutrosophic SuperHyper-Bipartite and Neutrosophic SuperHyper-Path are introduced. More instances and more clarifications alongside sufficient references.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperStable'' $\mathcal{I}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.