## Search Results

### 20 articles found

to

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching, Cancer's Recognition

Online: 16 January 2023 (03:41:09 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable; Cancer's Recognition

Online: 4 January 2023 (02:32:04 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Applied Mathematics
Keywords:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph; SuperHyperSTABLE; Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition

Online: 29 August 2023 (10:33:53 CEST)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable; Cancer's Recognition

Online: 12 January 2023 (09:49:28 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing; Cancerâ€™s Recognitions

Online: 5 January 2023 (10:53:02 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances; Cancerâ€™s Recognitions

Online: 28 December 2022 (12:19:33 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGirth; Cancerâ€™s Treatments

Online: 27 December 2022 (01:56:39 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDegrees; cancerâ€™s treatments

Online: 19 December 2022 (04:37:22 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
extreme SuperHyperGraph; (extreme) SuperHyperGirth; Cancer's extreme Recognition

Online: 23 January 2023 (04:45:34 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph; (neutrosophic) SuperHyperGirth; Cancer's neutrosophic Recognition

Online: 23 January 2023 (04:44:12 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph; Extreme SuperHyperClique; Cancer's Extreme Recognition

Online: 17 January 2023 (10:15:16 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching; Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition

Online: 16 January 2023 (03:46:30 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; Cancerâ€™s Recognitions

Online: 6 January 2023 (09:49:42 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition

Online: 5 January 2023 (02:08:09 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Applied Mathematics
Keywords:
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph; (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances; Cancerâ€™s Recognitions

Online: 29 December 2022 (02:28:02 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph; Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique; Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition

Online: 16 January 2023 (09:49:29 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph, Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique, Cancer's Extreme Recognition

Online: 16 January 2023 (03:10:55 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph; Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition

Online: 13 January 2023 (07:45:33 CET)

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.

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Applied Mathematics
Keywords:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph; SuperHyper

_{STABLE}; Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition
Online: 13 February 2024 (07:48:28 CET)

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

Subject:
Computer Science And Mathematics,
Computer Vision And Graphics
Keywords:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing, Cancerâ€™s Neutrosophic Recognition

Online: 4 January 2023 (02:34:52 CET)

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.