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, 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.

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, 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.

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.

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, 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 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.

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' $\mathcal{Z}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in $V(G) \setminus S$ are colored white) such that $V(G)$ isn't turned black after finitely many applications of ``the color-change rule'': a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred by ``1-'' about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; a ``neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' $\mathcal{Z}_n(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in $V(G) \setminus S$ are colored white) such that $V(G)$ isn't turned black after finitely many applications of ``the color-change rule'': a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred by ``1-'' about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' is a \underline{maximal} 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 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-$1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 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 SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “SuperHyperForcing” Z(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) is the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing” Zn(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) is the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “SuperHyperForcing” Z(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) is the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing” Zn(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) is the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−SuperHyperForcing” is a minimal SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with minimum 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.Thefirst Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperForcing” is a minimal neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with minimum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N(s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + 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 SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make SuperHyperForcing more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “SuperHyperForcing”. 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. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

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 SuperHyperNotion, namely, 11 Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 12 are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 13 SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 14 well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For 15 shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this 16 SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 17 SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the 18 instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are 19 figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 20 “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges 21 make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are 22 viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them are 23 individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all 24 officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called 25 “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic 26 SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic 27 Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 28 to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some 29 avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of 30 some questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “1-failed 31 SuperHyperForcing” Z(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) 32 is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 33 (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t 34 turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white 35 SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white 36 SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred 37 by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 38 SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic 1-failed 39 SuperHyperForcing” Zn(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) 40 is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 41 SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such 42 that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: 43 a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only 44 1/128 white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is 45 referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on 46 white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 47 Then an “δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of 48 SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 49 expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 50 |S ∩N(s)| > |S ∩(V \N(s))|+δ, |S ∩N(s)| < |S ∩(V \N(s))|+δ. The first Expression, 51 holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 52 “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 53 neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 54 neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 55 neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N(s)|neutrosophic > 56 |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 57 The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 58 second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 59 define “neutrosophic” version of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more ways to 60 get type-results to make 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. For the sake 61 of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the 62 notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 63 SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 64 procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 65 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if 66 the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 67 HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 68 with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 69 Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 70 “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 71 HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 72 SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 73 and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 74 based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 75 foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 76 have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s 77 officially called “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” but otherwise, it isn’t 1-failed 78 SuperHyperForcing. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main 79 definition titled “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. These two examples get more scrutiny 80 and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 81 SuperHyperClass based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having 82 neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of 83 “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic 1-failed 84 SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 85 by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 86 the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 87 It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And 88 1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” if 89 the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of 90 SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make 91 neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic 92 SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 93 Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 94 SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 95 “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 96 SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic 97 2/128 SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 98 holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” where it’s 99 the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 100 amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 1-failed 101 SuperHyperForcing.] 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s 102 SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 103 Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 104 follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 105 SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one 106 SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 107 only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 108 SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 109 SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 110 SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 111 intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 112 separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one 113 SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has 114 one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes 115 the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially 116 called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 117 SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 118 SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 119 between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 120 “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 121 indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 122 the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 123 will be based on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the 124 definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic recognition of the 125 cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 126 [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 127 identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 128 since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 129 the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 130 said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 131 happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 132 they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 133 and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 134 cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 135 SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 136 The aim is to find either the longest 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the strongest 137 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 138 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, called 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, and the strongest 139 SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, some general results 140 are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have 141 only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 142 SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 143 any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 144 literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph 145 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, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances and Neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. 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. An “SuperHyperAlliance” is a minimal SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices with minimum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s∈S:,|S∩N(s)|>|S∩(V \N(s))|,and|S∩N(s)|<|S∩(V \N(s))|.Thefirst Expression, holds if S is SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is “SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”. 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 SuperHyperAlliance. It’s redefined neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliance 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 Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The Minimum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. 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 SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, then it’s officially called “SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled “SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”. 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 SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances are redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances 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 “neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances.] SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. 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 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 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 SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances or the strongest SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, called SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, 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, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, SuperHyperAlliances and Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances. 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. An “SuperHyperAlliance” is a minimal SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices with minimum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s∈S:,|S∩N(s)|>|S∩(V \N(s))|,and|S∩N(s)|<|S∩(V \N(s))|.Thefirst Expression, holds if S is SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is “SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperAlliances. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make SuperHyperAlliances more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “SuperHyperAlliances”. 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 SuperHyperAlliance. It’s redefined neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliance 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 Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The Minimum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on SuperHyperAlliances. 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 SuperHyperAlliances, then it’s officially called “SuperHyperAlliances” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperAlliances. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled “SuperHyperAlliances”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on SuperHyperAlliances. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. 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 SuperHyperAlliances are redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances” 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances 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 “neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all SuperHyperAlliances amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperAlliances.] SuperHyperAlliances. 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 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 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 SuperHyperAlliances or the strongest SuperHyperAlliances in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperAlliances, called SuperHyperAlliances, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances, 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.

The research is on the SuperHyperGirth and the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperGraph has SuperHyperGirth where it’s the longest SuperHyperCycle. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on SuperHyperGirth. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. This SuperHyperClass is officially called “SuperHyperFlower”. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperCycles until the SuperHyperGirth, then it’s officially called “SuperHyperOrder” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperOrder. There are two instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled “SuperHyperGirth”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on SuperHyperGirth and they’re called “SuperHyperFlower.” A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” where it’s the strongest [the maximum value from all SuperHyperCycles amid the minimum value amid all SuperHyperEdges from a SuperHyperCycle.] SuperHyperCycle. In “Cancer’s Recognitions”, the aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperCycle or the strongest SuperHyperCycle in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperCycle, called SuperHyperGirth, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, 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, new setting is introduced for new notions, namely, SuperHyperDegree and Co-SuperHyperDegree. Two different types of definitions 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 treatments 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 treatments”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “cancer’s treatments”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions and some problems. If there’s a SuperHyperEdge between two SuperHyperVertices, then these two SuperHyperVertices are called SuperHyperNeighbors. The number of SuperHyperNeighbors for a given SuperHyperVertex is called SuperHyperDegree. The number of common SuperHyperNeighbors for some SuperHyperVertices is called Co-SuperHyperDegree for them and used SuperHyperVertices are called Co-SuperHyperNeighbors. 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 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 SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The number of SuperHyperEdges for a given SuperHyperVertex is called SuperHyperDegree. The number of common SuperHyperEdges for some SuperHyperVertices is called Co-SuperHyperDegree for them. The number of SuperHyperVertices for a given SuperHyperEdge is called SuperHyperDegree. The number of common SuperHyperVertices for some SuperHyperEdges is called Co-SuperHyperDegree for them. The model proposes the specific designs. The model is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this model, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are modeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are modeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise model which in this case the model is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will be based on the caner’s treatment and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

In this research article, the notions of SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving are defined in the setting of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Some ideas are introduced on both notions of SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving, simultaneously and as the same with each other. Some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are defined based on the notion, SuperHyperResolving. The terms of duality, totality, perfectness, connectedness, and stable, are added to basic framework and initial notions, SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving but the concentration is on the “perfectness” to figure out what’s going on when for all targeted SuperHyperVertices, there’s only one SuperHyperVertex in the intended set. There are some instances and some clarifications to make sense about what’s happened and what’s done in the starting definitions. The key point is about the minimum sets. There are some questions and some problems to be taken as some avenues to pursue this study and this research. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

New setting is introduced to study co-neighborhood, neutrosophic t-neighborhood, neutrosophic quasi-vertex set, neutrosophic quasi-order, neutrosophic neighborhood, neutrosophic co-t-neighborhood, neutrosophic quasi-edge set, neutrosophic quasi-size, Neutrosophic number, neutrosophic co-neighborhood, co-neutrosophic number, quasi-number and quasi-co-number. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are investigated.

New setting is introduced to study neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number arising neighborhood of different vertices. Neighbor is a key term to have these notions. Having all possible edges amid vertices in a set is a key type of approach to have these notions namely neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number. Two numbers are obtained but now both settings leads to approach is on demand which is finding biggest set which have all vertices which are neighbors. Let NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then failed independent number I(NTG) for a neutrosophic graph NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) is maximum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge, simultaneously; failed independent neutrosophic-number In(NTG) for a neutrosophic graph NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) is maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge, simultaneously. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks, examples and clarifications about some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely path-neutrosophic graphs, cycle-neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs, star-neutrosophic graphs, complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs and complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs. The clarifications are also presented in both sections “Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-Independent Number,” and “Setting of Failed Independent Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes. Neutrosophic number is reused in this way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this number to compare with other vertices. Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a comparison. This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number arising neighborhoods of vertices. In path-neutrosophic graphs, two neighbors, form maximal set but with slightly differences, in cycle-neutrosophic graphs, two neighbors forms maximal set. Other classes have same approaches. In complete-neutrosophic graphs, a set of all vertices leads us to neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number. In star-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices containing only center and one other vertex, makes maximal set. In complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices including two vertices from different parts makes intended set but with slightly differences, in complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of t vertices from different parts makes intended set. In both settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some clarifications for each result and each definition are provided. Using basic set to extend this set to set of all vertices has key role to have these notions in the form of neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number arising neighborhood of vertices. The cardinality of a set has eligibility to neutrosophic failed-independent number but the neutrosophic cardinality of a set has eligibility to call failed independent neutrosophic-number. Some results get more frameworks and perspective about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices have connections amid each other, opens the way to do some approaches. A vertex could affect on other vertex but there’s no usage of edges. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals but not family of them as drawbacks for these notions. Finding special neutrosophic graphs which are well-known, is an open way to pursue this study. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. Leaf-like is a key term to have these notions. Forcing a vertex to change its color is a type of approach to force that vertex to be zero-like. Forcing a vertex which is only neighbor for zero-like vertex to be zero-like vertex but now reverse approach is on demand which is finding biggest set which doesn’t force. LetNTG : (V,E,σ,μ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then failed zero-forcing number Z(NTG) for a neutrosophic graph NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) is maximal cardinality of a set S of black vertices (whereas vertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white vertex is converted to a black vertex if it is the only white neighbor of a black vertex. Failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number Zn(NTG) for a neutrosophic graphNTG : (V,E,σ,μ) is maximal neutrosophic cardinality of a set S of black vertices (whereas vertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black afterfinitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white vertex is converted to a black vertex if it is the only white neighbor of a black vertex. Failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number are about a set of vertices which are applied into the setting of neutrosophic graphs. The structure of set is studied and general results are obtained. Also, some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely path-neutrosophic graphs, cycle-neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs, star-neutrosophic graphs, bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, and t-partite-neutrosophic graphs are investigated in the terms of maximal set which forms both of failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. Neutrosophic number is reused in this way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this number to compare with other vertices. Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a comparison. This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. In path-neutrosophic graphs, the set of vertices such that every given two vertices in the set, have distance at least two, forms maximal set but with slightly differences, in cycle-neutrosophic graphs, the set of vertices such that every given two vertices in the set, have distance at least two, forms maximal set. Other classes have same approaches. In complete-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices excluding two vertices leads us to failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. In star-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices excluding only two vertices and containing center, makes maximal set. In complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices excluding two vertices from same parts makes intended set but with slightly differences, in complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices excluding two vertices from same parts makes intended set. In both settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some clarifications for each result and each definition are provided. Using basic set not to extend this set to set of all vertices has key role to have these notions in the form of failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. The cardinality of a set has eligibility to form failed zero-forcing number but the neutrosophic cardinality of a set has eligibility to call failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. Some results get more frameworks and perspective about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices don’t have unique connection together, opens the way to do some approaches. A vertex could affect on other vertex but there’s no usage of edges. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals but not family of them as drawbacks for these notions. Finding special neutrosophic graphs which are well-known, is an open way to pursue this study. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study quasi-degree and quasi-co-degree arising from co-neighborhood. quasi-degree and quasi-co-degree is about a vertex which are applied into the setting of neutrosophic graphs. . The structure of set is studied and general results are obtained. Also, some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely path-neutrosophic graphs, cycle-neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs and star-neutrosophic graphs, complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs and complete-multipartite-neutrosophic graphs are investigated in the terms of a vertex which is called either quasi-degree or quasi-co-degree. Neutrosophic number is reused in this way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this number to compare with other vertices. Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a comparison. This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form quasi-degree and quasi-co-degree. Quasi-degree is a value of a vertex which is maximum amid all values of vertices which are neighbors to a fixed vertex. Quasi-co-degree is a value of an edge which is maximum amid all values of edges which are neighbors to a fixed vertex but corresponded vertex is representative for this notion. Using different values which are related to a vertex inspire us to focus on edge and vertices which are corresponded to a fixed vertex. The notion of neighborhood is used to collect either vertices are titled neighbors or edges are incident to fixed vertex. In both settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some clarifications for each result and each definitions are provided. Using fixed vertex has key role to have these notions in the form of vertex or edge. The value of an edge has eligibility to call quasi-co-degree but the value of a vertex has eligibility to call quasi-degree. Some results get more frameworks and perspective about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices have connection together, open the way to define neighborhood and co-neighborhood. The maximum values in neighborhood and co-neighborhood introduces quasi-degree and quasi-co-degree, respectively. New name is chosen from degree. Since amid all vertices with different degrees, one vertex is chosen. In other words, one vertex is fixed and its degree turns out quasi-degree where two degrees could be assigned to a vertex. Degree of edges and degree of vertices. The number of edges which are incident to the vertex and the number of vertices which are neighbors to the vertex. Degree and co-degree are the notions which are transformed to use in quasi-style. Two neutrosophic values introduce two neutrosophic vertices separately in each settings. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals but not family of them as drawbacks for these notions. Finding special neutrosophic graphs which are well-known, is an open way to purse this study. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study the global powerful alliance. Global powerful alliance is about a set of vertices which are applied into the setting of neutrosophic graphs. Neighborhood has the key role to define this notion. Also, neighborhood is defined based on strong edges. Strong edge gets a framework as neighborhood and after that, too close vertices have key role to define global powerful alliance based on strong edges. The structure of set is studied and general results are obtained. Also, some classes of neutrosophic graphs excluding empty, path, star, and wheel and containing complete, cycle and r-regular-strong are investigated in the terms of set, minimal set, number, and neutrosophic number. Neutrosophic number is used in this way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this number. It’s called “modified neutrosophic number”. Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a set makes neutrosophic number of set. This approach facilitates identifying minimal set and optimal set which forms minimal-global-powerful-alliance number and minimal-global-powerful-alliance-neutrosophic number. Two different types of sets namely global-powerful alliance and minimal-global-powerful alliance are defined. Global-powerful alliance identifies the sets in general vision but minimal-global-powerful alliance takes focus on the sets which deleting a vertex is impossible. Minimal-global-powerful-alliance number is about minimum cardinality amid the cardinalities of all minimal-global-powerful alliances in a given neutrosophic graph. New notions are applied in the settings both individual and family. Family of neutrosophic graphs has an open avenue, in the way that, the family only contains same classes of neutrosophic graphs. The results are about minimal-global-powerful alliance, minimal-global-powerful-alliance number and its corresponded sets, minimal-global-powerful-alliance-neutrosophic number and its corresponded sets, and characterizing all minimal-global-powerful alliances, minimal-t-powerful alliance, minimal-t-powerful-alliance number and its corresponded sets, minimal-t-powerful-alliance-neutrosophic number and its corresponded sets, and characterizing all minimal-t-powerful alliances. The connections amid t-powerful-alliances are obtained. The number of connected components has some relations with this new concept and it gets some results. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs behave differently when the parity of vertices are different and in this case, cycle, and complete illustrate these behaviors. Two applications concerning complete model as individual and family, under the titles of time table and scheduling conclude the results and they give more clarifications and closing remarks. In this study, there’s an open way to extend these results into the family of these classes of neutrosophic graphs. The family of neutrosophic graphs aren’t study deeply and with more results but it seems that analogous results are determined. Slight progress is obtained in the family of these models but there are open avenues to study family of other models as same models and different models. There’s a question. How can be related to each other, two sets partitioning the vertex set of a graph? The ideas of neighborhood and neighbors based on strong edges illustrate open way to get results. A set is global powerful alliance when two sets partitioning vertex set have uniform structure. All members of set have more amount of neighbors in the set than out of set and reversely for non-members of set with less members in the way that the set is simultaneously t-offensive and(t-2)-defensive. A set is global if t=0. It leads us to the notion of global powerful alliance. Different edges make different neighborhoods but it’s used one style edge titled strong edge. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals and family of them. Independent set as an alliance is a special set which has no neighbor inside and it implies some drawbacks for these notions. Finding special sets which are well-known, is an open way to purse this study. Special set which its members have only one neighbor inside, characterize the connected components where the cardinality of its complement is the number of connected components. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study the global offensive alliance. Global offensive alliance is about a set of vertices which are applied into the setting of neutrosophic graphs. Neighborhood has the key role to define this notion. Also, neighborhood is defined based on strong edges. Strong edge gets a framework as neighborhood and after that, too close vertices have key role to define global offensive alliance based on strong edges. The structure of set is studied and general results are obtained. Also, some classes of neutrosophic graphs containing complete, empty, path, cycle, star, and wheel are investigated in the terms of set, minimal set, number, and neutrosophic number. Neutrosophic number is defined in new way. It’s first time to define this type of neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this number. It’s called “modified neutrosophic number”. Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a set makes neutrosophic number of set. This approach facilitates identifying minimal set and optimal set which forms minimal-global-offensive-alliance number and minimal-global-offensive-alliance-neutrosophic number. Two different types of sets namely global-offensive alliance and minimal-global-offensive alliance are defined. Global-offensive alliance identifies the sets in general vision but minimal-global-offensive alliance takes focus on the sets which deleting a vertex is impossible. Minimal-global-offensive-alliance number is about minimum cardinality amid the cardinalities of all minimal-global-offensive alliances in a given neutrosophic graph. New notions are applied in the settings both individual and family. Family of neutrosophic graphs is studied in the way that, the family only contains same classes of neutrosophic graphs. Three types of family of neutrosophic graphs including m-family of neutrosophic stars with common neutrosophic vertex set, m-family of odd complete graphs with common neutrosophic vertex set, and m-family of odd complete graphs with common neutrosophic vertex set are studied. The results are about minimal-global-offensive alliance, minimal-global-offensive-alliance number and its corresponded sets, minimal-global-offensive-alliance-neutrosophic number and its corresponded sets, and characterizing all minimal-global-offensive alliances. The connection of global-offensive-alliances with dominating set and chromatic number are obtained. The number of connected components has some relations with this new concept and it gets some results. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs behave differently when the parity of vertices are different and in this case, path, cycle, and complete illustrate these behaviors. Two applications concerning complete model as individual and family, under the titles of time table and scheduling conclude the results and they give more clarifications. In this study, there’s an open way to extend these results into the family of these classes of neutrosophic graphs. The family of neutrosophic graphs aren’t study deeply and with more results but it seems that analogous results are determined. Slight progress is obtained in the family of these models but there are open avenues to study family of other models as same models and different models. There’s a question. How can be related to each other, two sets partitioning the vertex set of a graph? The ideas of neighborhood and neighbors based on strong edges illustrate open way to get results. A set is global offensive alliance when two sets partitioning vertex set have uniform structure. All members of set have more amount of neighbors in the set than out of set. It leads us to the notion of global offensive alliance. Different edges make different neighborhoods but it’s used one style edge titled strong edge. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals and family of them. Independent set as an alliance is a special set which has no neighbor inside and it implies some drawbacks for these notions. Finding special sets which are well-known, is an open way to purse this study. Special set which its members have only one neighbor inside, characterize the connected components where the cardinality of its complement is the number of connected components. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study the alliances. Alliances are about a set of vertices which are applied into the setting of neutrosophic graphs. Neighborhood has the key role to define these notions. Also, neighborhood is defined based on the edges, strong edges and some edges which are coming from connectedness. These three types of edges get a framework as neighborhood and after that, too close vertices have key role to define offensive alliance, defensive alliance, t-offensive alliance, and t-defensive alliance based on three types of edges, common edges, strong edges and some edges which are coming from connectedness. The structure of set is studied and general results are obtained. Also, some classes of neutrosophic graphs containing complete, empty, path, cycle, bipartite, t-partite, star and wheel are investigated in the terms of set, minimal set, number, and neutrosophic number. In this study, there’s an open way to extend these results into the family of these classes of neutrosophic graphs. The family of neutrosophic graphs aren’t study but it seems that analogous results are determined. There’s a question. How can be related to each other, two sets partitioning the vertex set of a graph? The ideas of neighborhood and neighbors based on different edges illustrate open way to get results. A set is alliance when two sets partitioning vertex set have uniform structure. All members of set have different amount of neighbors in the set and out of set. It leads us to the notion of offensive and defensive. New ideas, offensive alliance, defensive alliance, t-offensive alliance, t-defensive alliance, strong offensive alliance, strong defensive alliance, strong t-offensive alliance, strong t-defensive alliance, connected offensive alliance, connected defensive alliance, connected t-offensive alliance, and connected t-defensive alliance are introduced. Two numbers concerning cardinality and neutrosophic cardinality of alliances are introduced. A set is alliance when its complement make a relation in the terms of neighborhood. Different edges make different neighborhoods. Three types of edges are applied to define three styles of neighborhoods. General edges, strong edges and connected edges are used where connected edges are the edges arising from connectedness amid two endpoints of the edges. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals and family of them. Independent set as an alliance is a special set which has no neighbor inside and it implies some drawbacks for this notions. Finding special sets which are well-known, is an open way to purse this study. Special set which its members have only one neighbor inside, characterize the connected components where the cardinality of its complement is the number of connected components. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study “closing numbers” and “super-closing numbers” as optimal-super-resolving number, optimal-super-coloring number and optimal-super-dominating number. In this way, some approaches are applied to get some sets from (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph and after that, some ideas are applied to get different types of super-closing numbers which are called by optimal-super-resolving number, optimal-super-coloring number and optimal-super-dominating number. The notion of dual is another new idea which is covered by these notions and results. In the setting of dual, the set of super-vertices is exchanged with the set of super-edges. Thus these results and definitions hold in the setting of dual. Setting of neutrosophic n-SuperHyperGraph is used to get some examples and solutions for two applications which are proposed. Both setting of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic n-SuperHyperGraph are simultaneously studied but the results are about the setting of n-SuperHyperGraphs. Setting of neutrosophic n-SuperHyperGraph get some examples where neutrosophic hypergraphs as special case of neutrosophic n-SuperHyperGraph are used. The clarifications use neutrosophic n-SuperHyperGraph and theoretical study is to use n-SuperHyperGraph but these results are also applicable into neutrosophic n-SuperHyperGraph. Special usage from different attributes of neutrosophic n-SuperHyperGraph are appropriate to have open ways to pursue this study. Different types of procedures including optimal-super-set, and optimal-super-number alongside study on the family of (neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph are proposed in this way, some results are obtained. General classes of (neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph are used to obtains these closing numbers and super-closing numbers and the representatives of the optimal-super-coloring sets, optimal-super-dominating sets and optimal-super-resolving sets. Using colors to assign to the super-vertices of n-SuperHyperGraph and characterizing optimal-super-resolving sets and optimal-super-dominating sets are applied. Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Using different ways of study on n-SuperHyperGraph to get new results about closing numbers and super-closing numbers alongside sets in the way that some closing numbers super-closing numbers get understandable perspective. Family of n-SuperHyperGraph are studied to investigate about the notions, super-resolving and super-coloring alongside super-dominating in n-SuperHyperGraph. In this way, sets of representatives of optimal-super-colors, optimal-super-resolving sets and optimal-super-dominating sets have key role. Optimal-super sets and optimal-super numbers have key points to get new results but in some cases, there are usages of sets and numbers instead of optimal-super ones. Simultaneously, three notions are applied into (neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph to get sensible results about their structures. Basic familiarities with n-SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic n-SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study types of coloring numbers, degree of vertices, degree of hyperedges, co-degree of vertices, co-degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic degree of vertices, neutrosophic degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic co-degree of vertices, neutrosophic co-degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic number of vertices, neutrosophic number of hyperedges in neutrosophic hypergraphs. Different types of procedures including neutrosophic (r, n)−regular hypergraphs and neutrosophic complete r−partite hypergraphs are proposed in this way, some results are obtained. General classes of neutrosophic hypergraphs are used to obtain chromatic number, the representatives of the colors, degree of vertices, degree of hyperedges, co-degree of vertices, co-degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic degree of vertices, neutrosophic degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic co-degree of vertices, neutrosophic co-degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic number of vertices, neutrosophic number of hyperedges in neutrosophic hypergraphs. Using colors to assign to the vertices of neutrosophic hypergraphs and characterizing representatives of the colors are applied in neutrosophic (r, n)−regular hypergraphs and neutrosophic complete r−partite hypergraphs. Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Using different ways of study on neutrosophic hypergraphs to get new results about number, degree and co-degree in the way that some number, degree and co-degree get understandable perspective. Neutrosophic (r, n)−regular hypergraphs and neutrosophic complete r−partite hypergraphs are studied to investigate about the notions, coloring, the representatives of the colors, degree of vertices, degree of hyperedges, co-degree of vertices, co-degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic degree of vertices, neutrosophic degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic co-degree of vertices, neutrosophic co-degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic number of vertices, neutrosophic number of hyperedges in neutrosophic (r, n)−regular hypergraphs and neutrosophic complete r−partite hypergraphs. In this way, sets of representatives of colors, degree of vertices, degree of hyperedges, co-degree of vertices, co-degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic degree of vertices, neutrosophic degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic co-degree of vertices, neutrosophic co-degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic number of vertices, neutrosophic number of hyperedges have key points to get new results but in some cases, there are usages of sets and numbers instead of optimal ones. Simultaneously, notions chromatic number, the representatives of the colors, degree of vertices, degree of hyperedges, co-degree of vertices, co-degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic degree of vertices, neutrosophic degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic co-degree of vertices, neutrosophic co-degree of hyperedges, neutrosophic number of vertices, neutrosophic number of hyperedges are applied into neutrosophic hypergraphs, especially, neutrosophic (r, n)−regular hypergraphs and neutrosophic complete r−partite hypergraphs to get sensible results about their structures. Basic familiarities with neutrosophic hypergraphs theory and hypergraph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study resolving number and chromatic number alongside dominating number. Different types of procedures including set, optimal set, and optimal number alongside study on the family of neutrosophic hypergraphs are proposed in this way, some results are obtained. General classes of neutrosophic hypergraphs are used to obtains these numbers and the representatives of the colors, dominating sets and resolving sets. Using colors to assign to the vertices of neutrosophic hypergraphs and characterizing resolving sets and dominating sets are applied. Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Using different ways of study on neutrosophic hypergraphs to get new results about numbers and sets in the way that some numbers get understandable perspective. Family of neutrosophic hypergraphs are studied to investigate about the notions, dimension and coloring alongside domination in neutrosophic hypergraphs. In this way, sets of representatives of colors, resolving sets and dominating sets have key role. Optimal sets and optimal numbers have key points to get new results but in some cases, there are usages of sets and numbers instead of optimal ones. Simultaneously, three notions are applied into neutrosophic hypergraphs to get sensible results about their structures. Basic familiarities with neutrosophic hypergraphs theory and hypergraph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study chromatic number. Different types of chromatic numbers and neutrosophic chromatic number are proposed in this way, some results are obtained. Classes of neutrosophic graphs are used to obtains these numbers and the representatives of the colors. Using colors to assign to the vertices of neutrosophic graphs is applied. Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Using different types of edges from connectedness in same neutrosophic graphs and in modified neutrosophic graphs to define the relation amid vertices which implies having different colors amid them and as consequences, choosing one vertex as a representative of each color to use them in a set of representatives and finally, using neutrosophic cardinality of this set to compute types of chromatic numbers. This specific relation amid edges is necessary to compute both types of chromatic number concerning the number of representative in the set of representatives and types of neutrosophic chromatic number concerning neutrosophic cardinality of set of representatives. If two vertices have no intended edge, then they can be assigned to same color even they’ve common edge. Basic familiarities with neutrosophic graph theory and graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study chromatic number. vital chromatic number and n-vital chromatic number are proposed in this way, some results are obtained. Classes of neutrosophic graphs are used to obtains these numbers and the representatives of the colors. Using colors to assign to the vertices of neutrosophic graphs is applied. Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Using vital edge from connectedness to define the relation amid vertices which implies having different colors amid them and as consequences, choosing one vertex as a representative of each color to use them in a set of representatives and finally, using neutrosophic cardinality of this set to compute vital chromatic number. This specific relation amid edges is necessary to compute both vital chromatic number concerning the number of representative in the set of representatives and n-vital chromatic number concerning neutrosophic cardinality of set of representatives. If two vertices have no vital edge, then they can be assigned to same color even they’ve common edge. Basic familiarities with neutrosophic graph theory and graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study chromatic number. Neutrosophic chromatic number and chromatic number are proposed in this way, some results are obtained. Classes of neutrosophic graphs are used to obtains these numbers and the representatives of the colors. Using colors to assigns to the vertices of neutrosophic graphs is applied. Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Using strong edge to define the relation amid vertices which implies having different colors amid them and as consequences, choosing one vertex as a representative of each color to use them in a set of representatives and finally, using neutrosophic cardinality of this set to compute neutrosophic chromatic number. This specific relation amid edges is necessary to compute both chromatic number concerning the number of representative in the set of representatives and neutrosophic chromatic number concerning neutrosophic cardinality of set of representatives. If two vertices have no strong edge, then they can be assigned to same color even they’ve common edge. Basic familiarities with neutrosophic graph theory and graph theory are proposed for this article.

New notion of dimension as set, as two optimal numbers including metric number, dimension number and as optimal set are introduced in individual framework and in formation of family. Behaviors of twin and antipodal are explored in fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs. Fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs, under conditions, fixed-edges, fixed-vertex and strong fixed-vertex are studied. Some classes as path, cycle, complete, strong, t-partite, bipartite, star and wheel in the formation of individual case and in the case, they form a family are studied in the term of dimension. Fuzzification(neutrosofication) of twin vertices but using crisp concept of antipodal vertices are another approaches of this study. Thus defining two notions concerning vertices which one of them is fuzzy(neutrosophic) titled twin and another is crisp titled antipodal to study the behaviors of cycles which are partitioned into even and odd, are concluded. Classes of cycles according to antipodal vertices are divided into two classes as even and odd. Parity of the number of edges in cycle causes to have two subsections under the section is entitled to antipodal vertices. In this study, the term dimension is introduced on fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs. The locations of objects by a set of some junctions which have distinct distance from any couple of objects out of the set, are determined. Thus it’s possible to have the locations of objects outside of this set by assigning partial number to any objects. The classes of these specific graphs are chosen to obtain some results based on dimension. The types of crisp notions and fuzzy(neutrosophic) notions are used to make sense about the material of this study and the outline of this study uses some new notions which are crisp and fuzzy(neutrosophic). Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Basic familiarities with fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph theory and graph theory are proposed for this article.

In this essay, the new notion concerning longest path is introduced. Longest path has a close relation with the notion of diameter in graph. The classes of graph are studied in the terms of having the vertex with longest path. Valued number is the number of edges belong to the longest path in the matter of vertex. For every vertex, there’s a valued number and new notion of valued set is the generalization of valued number for the vertex when all vertices of the graphs are corresponded to a vertex which has the greater valued number. For any positive integer, there’s one graph in that, there’s vertex which its valued number is that. By deleting the vertices which don’t belong to valued set, new notion of new graph is up. It’s called valued graph. The comparison amid valued graph and initial graph is up, too.

The aim of this article is to introduce the new notion on a given graph. The notions of valued set, valued function, valued graph and valued quotient are introduced. The attributes of these new notions are studied. Valued set is about the set of vertices which have the maximum number of neighbors. The kind of partition of the vertex set to the vertices of the valued set is introduced and its attributes are studied. The behaviors of classes of graphs under these new notions are studied and the algebraic operations on these sets in the different situations get new result to understand the classes of graphs, these notions and the general graphs better and more.

The kind of set which is based on edges, is introduced. The analysis on this set is done in the matter of operation which are the classes of graphs. The general notion which is related to this concept, is up. The set of edges is seen in the matter of common vertex, entitled neighbor edges and the set of edges which has specific condition on the vertices of graphs, entitled ghost set. The kind of viewpoint when the edges are up so the kind of efforts to assign some notions which get the sensible result of edges which make sense about these two types of notions. Notions of having some attributes about vertices concerning edges and edges' attributes to get result about edges in the matter of vertices.

In this article, some kinds of triple belongs to metric dimensions are defined. Some classes of graphs in the matter of these kinds, are studied and the relation amid these kinds are considered. The kind of having equivalency amid these notions and some classes of graphs, is obtained. The kind of locating some vertices by some vertices when the number of locating vertices is increased, has the key role to analyze the classes of graphs, general graphs, and graph's parameters.

Constructing new graph from the graph's parameters and related notions in the way that, the study on the new graph and old graph in their parameters could be facilitated. As graph, new graph has some characteristics and results which are related to the structure of this graph. For this purpose, regular graph is considered so the internal relation and external relation on this new graph are studied. The kind of having same number of edges when this number is originated by common number of graphs like maximum degree, minimum degree, domination number, coloring number and clique number, is founded in the word of having regular graph

Number is based in special edges, is introduced. The kind of natural extension from edges toward vertex and the set of vertices in the way that, the final notion is number, is studied. The result is obtained which is about the study on the classes of graphs in the matter of new notions. There is the extended notion about having edge amid two vertices toward having some edges in the word of neighbor and in another stage going into the atmosphere of having consecutive edges in the terminology of path and in the upper vision going on the notion about path with jargon and buzzword of distance as if the minimal vertices has concluded the new notions with the word, number.

In this article, some notions about set, weight of set, number, number's position, special vertex are introduced. Some classes of graph under these new notions have been opted as if the study on the special attributes of these new notion when they've acted amid each other is considered. Internal and external relations amid these new notions have been obtained as if some classes of graphs in the matter of these notions are been pointed out.

In this article, some notions about set, weight of set, number, number's position, special vertex are introduced. Some classes of graph under these new notions have been opted as if the study on the special attributes of these new notion when they've acted amid each other is considered. Internal and external relations amid these new notions have been obtained as if some classes of graphs in the matter of these notions are been pointed out.

In this article, there's an effort to make sense about the new versions of matroid. I believe that there's new idea on the background of. matroid. Two styles of matroid is defined in the background of fixed graphs and after that the attributes of these new notion on the graph and its parameters have been studied. The focus of this article is on the version of matroid which has the basis on the cycles as if there's gentle discussion on the results which are based on the set of independent vertices as matroid-x. The relation amid fundamental parameters and specific set like independent set and minimal set in the terminology of graph theory have been considered. Matroid is the word to use in the study on the parameters of graph theory as if set theory and its terminology are also recorded. The terms of word in various terminology have been relatively used. There are open ways to use hypergraphs or some serious relations amid these two types.

In this article, the connections amid matroid and other notions have been studied. The structure of matroid could be a reflection of some other structure in lattice theory, group theory, other algebraic structure, graph theory, combinatorics and enumeration theory.

In this outlet, I’ve devised the concept of relation amid two points where these points are coming up to make situation which in that the set of objects are greed to represent the story of how to be in whatever situations when these two points have the styles of being everywhere in the highlights of the concept which are coming from the merits of these points where are eligible to make capable situation to overcome every situation when they’re participant in the hugely diverse situations which mean too styles of graphs with have the name or the general results for the general situation as possible as are.