Extreme SuperHyperClique As The Firm Scheme of Confrontation Under Cancer's Recognition As The Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 17 January 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202301.0308.
v1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.
Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 2
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in 3
The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 4
Henry Garrett 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 7
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 8
1 Abstract 9
In this research, new setting is introduced for assuming a SuperHyperGraph. Then a 10
“SuperHyperClique” C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 11
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s 12
a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a 13
SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−SuperHyperClique” is a maximal SuperHyperClique of 14
SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 15
expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 16
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 17
Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 18
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperClique” is a 19
maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 20
neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 21
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 22
|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 23
The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 24
second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. A basic 25
familiarity with Extreme SuperHyperClique theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and 26
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 27
Keywords: (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph, Extreme SuperHyperClique, 28
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition 29
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 30
2 Background 31
Fuzzy set in Ref. [56] by Zadeh (1965), intuitionistic fuzzy sets in Ref. [43] by 32
Atanassov (1986), a first step to a theory of the intuitionistic fuzzy graphs in Ref. [53] 33
by Shannon and Atanassov (1994), a unifying field in logics neutrosophy: neutrosophic 34
probability, set and logic, rehoboth in Ref. [54] by Smarandache (1998), single-valued 35
neutrosophic sets in Ref. [55] by Wang et al. (2010), single-valued neutrosophic graphs 36
in Ref. [47] by Broumi et al. (2016), operations on single-valued neutrosophic graphs in 37
Ref. [39] by Akram and Shahzadi (2017), neutrosophic soft graphs in Ref. [52] by Shah 38
and Hussain (2016), bounds on the average and minimum attendance in 39
preference-based activity scheduling in Ref. [41] by Aronshtam and Ilani (2022), 40
investigating the recoverable robust single machine scheduling problem under interval 41
1/90
© 2023 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 17 January 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1
uncertainty in Ref. [46] by Bold and Goerigk (2022), polyhedra associated with 42
locating-dominating, open locating-dominating and locating total-dominating sets in 43
graphs in Ref. [40] by G. Argiroffo et al. (2022), a Vizing-type result for semi-total 44
domination in Ref. [42] by J. Asplund et al. (2020), total domination cover rubbling in 45
Ref. [44] by R.A. Beeler et al. (2020), on the global total k-domination number of 46
graphs in Ref. [45] by S. Bermudo et al. (2019), maker–breaker total domination game 47
in Ref. [48] by V. Gledel et al. (2020), a new upper bound on the total domination 48
number in graphs with minimum degree six in Ref. [49] by M.A. Henning, and A. Yeo 49
(2021), effect of predomination and vertex removal on the game total domination 50
number of a graph in Ref. [50] by V. Irsic (2019), hardness results of global total 51
k-domination problem in graphs in Ref. [51] by B.S. Panda, and P. Goyal (2021), are 52
studied. 53
Look at [34–38] for further researches on this topic. See the seminal researches [1–3]. 54
The formalization of the notions on the framework of Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 55
theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) 56
SuperHyperGraphs theory at [4–31]. Two popular research books in Scribd in the terms 57
of high readers, 2638 and 3363 respectively, on neutrosophic science is on [32, 33]. 58
Definition 2.1. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique). 59
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 60
(i) an extreme SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 61
N SHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 62
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 63
SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount 64
of extreme SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices 65
given by that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also 66
called an extreme (z, −)−SuperHyperClique extreme SuperHyperClique 67
C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme 68
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with 69
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 70
extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 71
an amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet 72
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an extreme 73
(−, x)−SuperHyperClique extreme SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an 74
extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet 75
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality 76
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 77
there’s an amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges amid x extreme 78
SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 79
SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an extreme (z, x)−SuperHyperClique 80
extreme SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 81
N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 82
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 83
SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z extreme 84
SuperHyperEdges amid x extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme 85
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the extreme extension 86
of the extreme notion of the extreme clique in the extreme graphs to the extreme 87
SuperHyperNotion of the extreme SuperHyperClique in the extreme 88
SuperHyperGraphs where in the extreme setting of the graphs, there’s an extreme 89
(1, 2)−SuperHyperClique since an extreme graph is an extreme SuperHyperGraph; 90
(ii) an neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 91
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 92
2/90
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 93
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 94
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of 95
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of neutrosophic 96
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 97
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an neutrosophic 98
(z, −)−SuperHyperClique neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an 99
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic 100
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 101
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z neutrosophic 103
SuperHyperEdge amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 104
that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s 105
also called an neutrosophic (−, x)−SuperHyperClique neutrosophic 106
SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 107
N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 108
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an 109
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 110
there’s an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic 111
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 112
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an neutrosophic 113
(z, x)−SuperHyperClique neutrosophic SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an 114
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an neutrosophic 115
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 116
S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z neutrosophic 118
SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 119
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the 120
neutrosophic extension of the neutrosophic notion of the neutrosophic clique in 121
the neutrosophic graphs to the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion of the 122
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs where in 123
the neutrosophic setting of the graphs, there’s an neutrosophic 124
(1, 2)−SuperHyperClique since an neutrosophic graph is an extreme 125
SuperHyperGraph; 126
Proposition 2.2. An extreme clique in an extreme graph is an extreme 127
(1, 2)−SuperHyperClique in that extreme SuperHyperGraph. And reverse of that 128
statement doesn’t hold. 129
Proposition 2.3. A neutrosophic clique in a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic 130
(1, 2)−SuperHyperClique in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. And reverse of that 131
statement doesn’t hold. 132
Proposition 2.4. Assume an extreme (x, z)−SuperHyperClique in an extreme 133
SuperHyperGraph. For all zi ≤ z, xi ≤ x, it’s an extreme (xi , zi )−SuperHyperClique in 134
that extreme SuperHyperGraph. 135
Proposition 2.5. Assume a neutrosophic (x, z)−SuperHyperClique in a neutrosophic 136
SuperHyperGraph. For all zi ≤ z, xi ≤ x, it’s a neutrosophic (xi , zi )−SuperHyperClique 137
in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 138
Definition 2.6. ((neutrosophic)δ−SuperHyperClique). 139
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 140
(i) an δ−SuperHyperClique is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 141
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) 142
3/90
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 143
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (2.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (2.2)
The Expression (2.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 144
Expression (2.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 145
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperClique is a maximal neutrosophic of 146
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 147
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 148
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 149
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (2.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (2.4)
The Expression (2.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 150
And the Expression (2.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 151
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 152
3 Extreme SuperHyperClique 153
Example 3.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 154
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 155
• On the Figure (1), the extreme SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme 156
SuperHyperClique, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty extreme SuperHyperEdges 157
but E2 is a loop extreme SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an extreme SuperHyperEdge. 158
Thus in the terms of extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one extreme 159
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 is extreme 160
isolated means that there’s no extreme SuperHyperEdge has it as an extreme 161
endpoint. Thus the extreme SuperHyperVertex, V3 , isn’t contained in every given 162
extreme SuperHyperClique. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 163
SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 164
SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V4 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 165
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 166
the extreme SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 167
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is an extreme 3-SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 168
for a extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme 169
type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 170
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme 171
SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 extreme SuperHyperVertices given by the extreme 172
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }. There’re not only 173
two extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. 174
Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple 175
extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique is a extreme 176
SuperHyperSet includes only two extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the extreme 177
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, doesn’t have less 178
than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. 179
Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 180
SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 181
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 182
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme 183
4/90
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is a extreme 184
SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is 185
the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 186
extreme SuperHyperEdge for any z SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme 187
type-SuperHyperSet and it’s an extreme SuperHyperClique. Since it’s 188
the maximum extreme cardinality of a extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 189
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for any two 190
extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet. There 191
isn’t only less than three extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 192
extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme 193
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 194
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is the 195
extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, doesn’t include only less than three 196
SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 197
It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple neutrosophic 198
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique amid those obvious 199
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperClique, is only 200
{V1 , V2 , V4 }. 201
• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperClique, is up. E1 202
and E3 SuperHyperClique are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop 203
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 204
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 205
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 206
an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given 207
SuperHyperClique. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 208
SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V4 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 210
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 211
the extreme SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 212
5/90
{V1 , V2 , V4 }. 246
• On the Figure (3), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperClique, is up. 247
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. 248
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, 249
namely, E4 . The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices 250
is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. 251
{V1 , V2 , V4 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 252
{V1 , V2 , V4 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 253
SuperHyperClique. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 254
6/90
{V1 , V2 , V4 }. 288
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a SuperHyperClique, is up. 289
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 290
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 291
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The following extreme 292
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 293
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }. The 294
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is the 295
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. The 296
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is 297
an extreme 3-SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph 298
ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 299
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of 300
extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 301
any 3 extreme SuperHyperVertices given by the extreme SuperHyperSet of the 302
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }. There’re not only two extreme 303
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the 304
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme 305
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique is a extreme 306
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, doesn’t have 308
less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. 309
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 312
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is a 314
extreme SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph 315
ESHG : (V, E) is the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices 316
such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for any z SuperHyperVertices given 317
by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet and it’s an extreme SuperHyperClique. 318
Since it’s the maximum extreme cardinality of a extreme SuperHyperSet S 319
of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for 320
any two extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet. 321
There isn’t only less than three extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 322
extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }. Thus the non-obvious extreme 323
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 324
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, is the 325
extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }, doesn’t include only less than three 326
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F } is an extreme(2, 5)−SuperHyperClique. {V4 , H} is an 328
extreme(2, −)−SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F } is an 329
extreme(−, 5)−SuperHyperClique. As the maximum extreme cardinality of the 330
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices is the matter, 331
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F } is an extreme SuperHyperClique; since it has five extreme 332
SuperHyperVertices with satisfying on the at least extreme conditions over both 333
of the extremeSuperHyperVertices and the extreme SuperHyperEdges. 334
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 336
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme 337
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }. The 338
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is the 339
7/90
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is 341
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }. There’re not only two extreme 347
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, doesn’t have 352
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 356
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is a 358
extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme 367
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 368
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, is the 369
extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }, doesn’t include only less than three 370
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 375
is mentioned as the SuperHyperModel ESHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 376
• On the Figure (6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperClique, is up.

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V5 , V6 }. The extreme
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, is the simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. The extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, is an extreme
SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is
an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality of
an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an
extreme SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 extreme SuperHyperVertices given by the
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’re
only two extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperClique isn’t up. The
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique is
8/90
a extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two extreme SuperHyperVertices. But

the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, does has
less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperClique isn’t up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. But the extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, is a extreme
the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an
extreme SuperHyperEdge for any z SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme
type-SuperHyperSet and it’s an extreme SuperHyperClique. Since it’s
the maximum extreme cardinality of a extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for any two
extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet. There is
only less than three extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperClique,
{V5 , V6 }, isn’t up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the
extreme SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 },
does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the
extreme SuperHyperClique, are only {V5 , V6 }, {V6 , V7 } in a connected
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6). It’s also, an extreme free-triangle
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of
the extreme SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperClique, are
{V5 , V15 }, {V8 , V9 }, {V7 , V8 }, {V5 , V6 }, {V6 , V7 }}.
• On the Figure (7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, extreme SuperHyperClique 377
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 } is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop 378
SuperHyperEdge. The following extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 379
SuperHyperClique. {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme 381
SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is the simple extreme 382
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. The extreme 383
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is an 384
extreme 3-SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph 385
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. There’re not only two 390
extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus 391
the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple extreme 392
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, doesn’t 395
have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 396
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the 397
9/90
extreme SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of 398
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is the non-obvious simple 399
extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme 400
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is 412
the extreme SuperHyperSet, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, doesn’t include only less than 413
three SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 414
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 415
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperClique amid 416
those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme 417
SuperHyperClique, is only {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 } in a connected neutrosophic 418
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of depicted SuperHyperModel as the Figure 419
(7). But 420
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }

{V4 , V, V6 , V7 , V13 }
are the only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme 421
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the 422
extreme SuperHyperVertices. 423
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. 427
The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 428
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 429
SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is an extreme 3-SuperHyperClique 431
C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme 432
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. 436
There’re not only two extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 437
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperClique is up. The 438
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique is a 439
extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the 440
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, 441
doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 442
10/90
(7). But 466
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }

{V4 , V, V6 , V7 , V13 }
extreme SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 469
ESHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 470
• On the Figure (9), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperClique, is up.

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices is the simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V5 , V6 }. The extreme
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, is the simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. The extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, is an extreme
an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality of
an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an
extreme SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 extreme SuperHyperVertices given by the
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’re
only two extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperClique isn’t up. The
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique is
a extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two extreme SuperHyperVertices. But
the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, does has
less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme
SuperHyperClique isn’t up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. But the extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }, is a extreme
the extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an
11/90
extreme SuperHyperEdge for any z SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme

type-SuperHyperSet and it’s an extreme SuperHyperClique. Since it’s
the maximum extreme cardinality of a extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge for any two
extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme type-SuperHyperSet. There is
only less than three extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme
SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme SuperHyperClique,
{V5 , V6 }, isn’t up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the
extreme SuperHyperClique, {V5 , V6 }, is the extreme SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V6 },
does includes only less than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the
extreme SuperHyperClique, are only {V5 , V6 }, {V6 , V7 } in a connected
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6). It’s also, an extreme free-triangle
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of
the extreme SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperClique, are
{V5 , V15 }, {V8 , V9 }, {V7 , V8 }, {V5 , V6 }, {V6 , V7 }}
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a messy 471
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (9). 472
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. 476
The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 477
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is the simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 478
SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, is an extreme 3-SuperHyperClique 480
C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme 481
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }. 485
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique is a 488
extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two extreme SuperHyperVertices. But the 489
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }, 490
doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 491
12/90
(7). But 515
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 }

{V4 , V, V6 , V7 , V13 }
extreme SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 518
ESHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure 519
(10). 520
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 }. The extreme 524
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the simple extreme 525
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is an extreme 527
3-SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 528
is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality 529
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s 530
an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 extreme SuperHyperVertices given by 531
the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }. 532
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique is 535
a extreme SuperHyperSet includes only two extreme SuperHyperVertices. But 536
the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, doesn’t 537
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 541
13/90
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperClique, are only 559
{V1 , V2 , V3 } and {V4 , V5 , V6 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 560
ESHG : (V, E). But also, the only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 561
the extreme SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme 562
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperClique, are only {V1 , V2 , V3 } and 563
{V4 , V5 , V6 } in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 564
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }. The 568
extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is the 569
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is 571
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }. There’re not only two extreme 577
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, doesn’t have 582
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 586
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, is the 599
extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 }, doesn’t include only less than three 600
14/90
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 605
in highly-multiple-connected-style SuperHyperModel On the Figure (12) and it’s 606
also, the only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 607
extreme SuperHyperClique, is only {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 } in a connected extreme 609
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 610
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 }. The extreme 614
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the simple extreme 615
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is an extreme 617
3-SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) 618
is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality 619
of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s 620
an extreme SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 extreme SuperHyperVertices given by 621
the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }. 622
the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, doesn’t 627
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the non-obvious simple extreme 631
simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperClique, are only 649
{V1 , V2 , V3 } and {V4 , V5 , V6 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 650
ESHG : (V, E). But also, the only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 651
the extreme SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme 652
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperClique, are only {V1 , V2 , V3 } and 653
{V4 , V5 , V6 } in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 654
15/90
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 }. The extreme 658
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, is the simple extreme 659
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, is an extreme 661
an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality of 663
an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 664
extreme SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 extreme SuperHyperVertices given by the 665
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }. There’re 666
only two extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 667
the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, does has 671
SuperHyperClique isn’t up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of 674
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple extreme 675
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, is a extreme 677
extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme 686
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 687
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 }, is the extreme 688
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 }, doesn’t include only less than three SuperHyperVertices 689
in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 690
mention that the only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 691
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme 692
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperClique, are only {V1 , V2 } and 693
{V1 , V3 }. But the only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 694
extreme SuperHyperVertices, are only {V1 , V2 } and {V1 , V3 }. It’s noted that this 696
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme graph G : (V, E) thus the 697
notions in both settings are coincided. 698
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 }. The extreme 702
SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, is the simple extreme 703
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, is an extreme 705
16/90
an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum extreme cardinality of 707
an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 708
extreme SuperHyperEdge amid any 3 extreme SuperHyperVertices given by the 709
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }. There’re 710
only two extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 711
the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, does has 715
SuperHyperClique isn’t up. To sum them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet of 718
extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple extreme 719
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, is a extreme 721
extreme SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 }. Thus the non-obvious extreme 730
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple extreme 731
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 }, is the extreme 732
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 }, doesn’t include only less than three SuperHyperVertices 733
in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 734
mention that the only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 735
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme 736
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperClique, is only {V1 , V5 }. But the 737
only obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 738
extreme SuperHyperVertices, are only 740
{V1 , V2 },
{V2 , V3 },
{V3 , V4 },
{V4 , V6 },
{V5 , V1 }.
It’s noted that this extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a extreme graph 741
G : (V, E) thus the notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected 742
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected 743
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 744
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique. corresponded to the 748
SuperHyperEdge E4 The extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 749
corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 is the simple extreme 750
17/90
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to the 752
SuperHyperEdge E4 is an extreme 3-SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a extreme 753
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet with 754
extreme SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 There’re 758
not only two extreme SuperHyperVertices inside the intended extreme 759
the extreme SuperHyperSet of extreme SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to the 763
SuperHyperEdge E4 doesn’t have less than three SuperHyperVertices inside the 764
intended extreme SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple extreme 765
type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, 766
SuperHyperEdge E4 is the non-obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of 768
the extreme SuperHyperClique. Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 769
SuperHyperVertices, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 is a extreme 770
extreme SuperHyperSet, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 Thus the 779
non-obvious extreme SuperHyperClique, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 780
is up. The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 781
SuperHyperClique, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 is the extreme 782
SuperHyperSet, corresponded to the SuperHyperEdge E4 doesn’t include only less 783
than three SuperHyperVertices in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 784
SuperHyperClique, is only corresponded to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E4 788
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). But the only 789
obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 790
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSets, is 791
only corresponded to the extreme SuperHyperEdge E4 in a connected extreme 792
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 793
18/90
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). In a connected neutrosophic 842
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is 843
featured On the Figure (17). 844
19/90
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). In a connected neutrosophic 893
20/90
21/90
Proposition 3.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 993
ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperClique. 994
In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a 995
SuperHyperClique is the cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z}. 996
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 997
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a SuperHyperClique 998
since neither amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges nor amount of SuperHyperVertices 999
where amount refers to the extreme number of SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) 1000
more than one. Let us consider the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z}. This 1001
extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to 1002
propose some amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges for some amount of the extreme 1003
SuperHyperVertices taken from the mentioned extreme SuperHyperSet and it has the 1004
maximum extreme cardinality amid those extreme type-SuperHyperSets but the 1005
minimum case of the maximum extreme cardinality indicates that these extreme 1006
type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the extreme lower bound in the term of extreme 1007
sharpness. In other words, the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the extreme 1008
SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-triangle style is up but sometimes the extreme 1009
SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the extreme SuperHyperVertices is free-triangle and 1010
22/90
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperClique in

the Example (3.1)

the Example (3.1)
23/90

the Example (3.1)

the Example (3.1)
24/90

the Example (3.1)

the Example (3.1)
25/90

the Example (3.1)

the Example (3.1)
26/90

the Example (3.1)

the Example (3.1)
27/90

the Example (3.1)

the Example (3.1)
28/90

the Example (3.1)

the Example (3.1)
29/90

the Example (3.1)

the Example (3.1)
30/90

the Example (3.1)

the Example (3.1)
31/90

the Example (3.1)

the Example (3.1)
32/90
it doesn’t make a contradiction to the supposition on the connected loopless 1011
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens 1012
in the generality of the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we 1013
assume in the worst case, literally, V \ V \ {x, y, z}, is a SuperHyperClique. In other 1014
words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a 1015
SuperHyperClique is the cardinality of V \ V \ {x, y, z}. Then we’ve lost some 1016
connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the connected loopless 1017
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle. It’s the contradiction to that fact 1018
on the generality. There are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them 1019
comes from the setting of the graph titled path and cycle are well-known classes in that 1020
setting and they could be considered as the examples for the tight bound of 1021
V \ V \ {x, z}. Let V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge 1022
since we need at least two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t 1023
withdraw the principles of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied 1024
but the condition is on the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the 1025
SuperHyperVertices. In other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the extreme 1026
SuperHyperSet has the necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. 1027
Thus the V \ V \ {z} is withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by 1028
the necessity of the pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 1029
Proposition 3.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1030
Then the extreme number of SuperHyperClique has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1031
bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z} if there’s a 1032
SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1033
Proof. The extreme structure of the extreme SuperHyperClique decorates the extreme 1034
SuperHyperVertices have received complete extreme connections so as this extreme style 1035
implies different versions of extreme SuperHyperEdges with the maximum extreme 1036
cardinality in the terms of extreme SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower 1037
extreme bound is to have the minimum extreme groups of extreme SuperHyperVertices 1038
have perfect extreme connections inside and the outside of this extreme SuperHyperSet 1039
doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the used extreme SuperHyperGraph 1040
arising from its extreme properties taken from the fact that it’s simple. If there’s no 1041
extreme SuperHyperVertex in the targeted extreme SuperHyperSet, then there’s no 1042
extreme connection. Furthermore, the extreme existence of one extreme 1043
SuperHyperVertex has no extreme effect to talk about the extreme SuperHyperClique. 1044
Since at least two extreme SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the extreme 1045
background of the extreme SuperHyperGraph. The extreme SuperHyperGraph is 1046
obvious if it has no extreme SuperHyperEdge but at least two extreme 1047
SuperHyperVertices make the extreme version of extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the 1048
extreme setting of non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph, there are at least one 1049
extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is used as 1050
extreme adjective for the initial extreme SuperHyperGraph, induces there’s no extreme 1051
appearance of the loop extreme version of the extreme SuperHyperEdge and this 1052
extreme SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The extreme adjective “loop” on the 1053
basic extreme framework engages one extreme SuperHyperVertex but it never happens 1054
in this extreme setting. With these extreme bases, on a extreme SuperHyperGraph, 1055
there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least a extreme 1056
SuperHyperClique has the extreme cardinality two. Thus, a extreme SuperHyperClique 1057
has the extreme cardinality at least two. Assume a extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. 1058
This extreme SuperHyperSet isn’t a extreme SuperHyperClique since either the extreme 1059
SuperHyperGraph is an obvious extreme SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since 1060
there’s no extreme usage of this extreme framework and even more there’s no extreme 1061
connection inside or the extreme SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its 1062
33/90
consequences, there’s an extreme contradiction with the term “extreme 1063
SuperHyperClique” since the maximum extreme cardinality never happens for this 1064
extreme style of the extreme SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no extreme 1065
connection inside as mentioned in first extreme case in the forms of drawback for this 1066
selected extreme SuperHyperSet. Let V \ V \ {x, y, z} comes up. This extreme case 1067
implies having the extreme style of on-triangle extreme style on the every extreme 1068
elements of this extreme SuperHyperSet. Precisely, the extreme SuperHyperClique is 1069
the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that any extreme 1070
amount of the extreme SuperHyperVertices are on-triangle extreme style. The extreme 1071
cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum in comparison to 1072
the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x} but the lower extreme bound is up. Thus the 1073
minimum extreme cardinality of the maximum extreme cardinality ends up the extreme 1074
discussion. The first extreme term refers to the extreme setting of the extreme 1075
SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough since there’s a extreme SuperHyperClass 1076
of a extreme SuperHyperGraph has no on-triangle extreme style amid any amount of its 1077
extreme SuperHyperVertices. This extreme setting of the extreme SuperHyperModel 1078
proposes an extreme SuperHyperSet has only two extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1079
that there’s extreme amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges involving these two extreme 1080
SuperHyperVertices. The extreme cardinality of this extreme SuperHyperSet is the 1081
maximum and the extreme case is occurred in the minimum extreme situation. To sum 1082
them up, the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x} has the maximum extreme 1083
cardinality such that V \ V \ {z, x} contains some extreme SuperHyperVertices such 1084
that there’s amount extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of extreme 1085
SuperHyperVertices taken from the extreme SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x}. It means 1086
that the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z, x}. is 1087
an extreme SuperHyperClique for the extreme SuperHyperGraph as used extreme 1088
background in the extreme terms of worst extreme case and the lower extreme bound 1089
occurred in the specific extreme SuperHyperClasses of the extreme SuperHyperGraphs 1090
which are extreme free-triangle. 1091
Proposition 3.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If 1092
an extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme 1093
cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperClique is at least z. It’s straightforward that the 1094
extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperClique is at least the maximum extreme 1095
number of extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, 1096
the extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme 1097
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to extreme SuperHyperClique in some cases but the 1098
extreme SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme 1099
SuperHyperVertices, has the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme 1100
SuperHyperClique. 1101
Proof. Assume an extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme

SuperHyperVertices. Then every extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least one extreme
SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those extreme SuperHyperVertices have
the eligibles to be contained in an extreme SuperHyperClique. Those extreme
SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in an extreme style-SuperHyperClique.
Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
are the extreme SuperHyperVertices of an extreme SuperHyperEdge. Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
extreme SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperGraph. The formal definition is
34/90
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices and there’s an extreme
SuperHyperEdge between the extreme SuperHyperVertices Zi and Zj . The other
definition for the extreme SuperHyperEdge in the terms of extreme SuperHyperClique is
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
This definition coincides with the definition of the extreme SuperHyperClique but with
slightly differences in the maximum extreme cardinality amid those extreme
type-SuperHyperSets of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus the extreme
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|extreme cardinality ,

z
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the extreme SuperHyperClique. Let

E
Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to the
extreme SuperHyperEdge E. Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
But with the slightly differences, 1102
extreme SuperHyperClique =
E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
Thus E is an extreme quasi-SuperHyperClique where E is fixed that means Ex = E. for 1103
all extreme intended SuperHyperVertices but in an extreme SuperHyperClique, Ex 1104
could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a connected extreme 1105
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If an extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme 1106
SuperHyperVertices, then the extreme cardinality of the extreme SuperHyperClique is 1107
at least z. It’s straightforward that the extreme cardinality of the extreme 1108
SuperHyperClique is at least the maximum extreme number of extreme 1109
SuperHyperVertices of the extreme SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the extreme 1110
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices 1111
are renamed to extreme SuperHyperClique in some cases but the extreme 1112
SuperHyperEdge with the maximum extreme number of extreme SuperHyperVertices, 1113
has the extreme SuperHyperVertices are contained in an extreme SuperHyperClique. 1114
Proposition 3.5. Assume a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph 1115
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge has only less than three 1116
distinct interior extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme 1117
quasi-SuperHyperClique. In other words, there’s only an unique extreme 1118
SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices in an extreme 1119
quasi-SuperHyperClique. 1120
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no SuperHyperEdges. But the non-obvious 1121
extreme SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses some issues 1122
about the extreme optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some remarks on 1123
the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s 1124
amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges for amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices taken 1125
from that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices but this extreme 1126
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum extreme 1127
SuperHyperCardinality or it doesn’t have maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. In 1128
35/90
a non-obvious SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge 1129
containing at least two extreme SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms an extreme 1130
quasi-SuperHyperClique where the extreme completion of the extreme incidence is up in 1131
that. Thus it’s, literarily, an extreme embedded SuperHyperClique. The 1132
SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet coincide. In 1133
the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the maximum 1134
SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1135
SuperHyperSets have the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1136
extreme SuperHyperOptimal. The less than three extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1137
included in the minimum extreme style of the embedded extreme SuperHyperClique. 1138
The interior types of the extreme SuperHyperVertices are deciders. Since the extreme 1139
number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by the interior extreme 1140
SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise and more formal, the 1141
perfect connections inside the extreme SuperHyperSet pose the extreme 1142
SuperHyperClique. Thus extreme exterior SuperHyperVertices could be used only in 1143
one extreme SuperHyperEdge and in extreme SuperHyperRelation with the interior 1144
extreme SuperHyperVertices in that extreme SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded 1145
extreme SuperHyperClique, there’s the usage of exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices 1146
since they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is 1147
more relevant than the title “interior”. One extreme SuperHyperVertex has no 1148
connection, inside. Thus, the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1149
SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to 1150
lead on the optimal case implying the extreme SuperHyperClique. The extreme 1151
SuperHyperClique with the exclusion of the exclusion of two extreme 1152
SuperHyperVertices and with other terms, the extreme SuperHyperClique with the 1153
inclusion of two extreme SuperHyperVertices is a extreme quasi-SuperHyperClique. To 1154
sum them up, in a connected non-obvious extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), 1155
there’s only one extreme SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior 1156
extreme SuperHyperVertices inside of any given extreme quasi-SuperHyperClique. In 1157
other words, there’s only an unique extreme SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct 1158
extreme SuperHyperVertices in an extreme quasi-SuperHyperClique. 1159
Proposition 3.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1160
all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-SuperHyperClique 1161
if for any of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, the two 1162
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1163
extreme exception at all. 1164
Proof. The main definition of the extreme SuperHyperClique has two titles. An 1165
extreme quasi-SuperHyperClique and its corresponded quasi-maximum extreme 1166
SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-styles. For any extreme 1167
number, there’s an extreme quasi-SuperHyperClique with that quasi-maximum extreme 1168
SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph. If 1169
there’s an embedded extreme SuperHyperGraph, then the extreme 1170
quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the collection of all the extreme 1171
quasi-SuperHyperCliques for all extreme numbers less than its extreme corresponded 1172
maximum number. The essence of the extreme SuperHyperClique ends up but this 1173
essence starts up in the terms of the extreme quasi-SuperHyperClique, again and more 1174
in the operations of collecting all the extreme quasi-SuperHyperCliques acted on the all 1175
possible used formations of the extreme SuperHyperGraph to achieve one extreme 1176
number. This extreme number is considered as the equivalence class for all 1177
corresponded quasi-SuperHyperCliques. Let zExtreme Number , SExtreme SuperHyperSet and 1178
GExtreme SuperHyperClique be an extreme number, an extreme SuperHyperSet and an 1179
36/90
extreme SuperHyperClique. Then 1180
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class = {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |

SExtreme SuperHyperSet = GExtreme SuperHyperClique ,
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the extreme SuperHyperClique is 1181
re-formalized and redefined as follows. 1182
GExtreme SuperHyperClique ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =

∪zExtreme Number {SExtreme SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 1183
technical definition for the extreme SuperHyperClique. 1184
GExtreme SuperHyperClique =
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
= zExtreme Number |
= max zExtreme Number }.
[zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the extreme 1185
SuperHyperClique poses the upcoming expressions. 1186
{S ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 1187
= max zExtreme Number = 2}.
And then, 1188
|SExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = 2}.
37/90
To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 1189

= 2}.
1190
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1191
1192
Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, “extreme 1193
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the extreme 1194
SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its extreme SuperHyperVertices are 1195
incident to an extreme SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, another name for “extreme 1196
Quasi-SuperHyperClique” but, precisely, it’s the generalization of “extreme 1197
Quasi-SuperHyperClique” since “extreme Quasi-SuperHyperClique” happens “extreme 1198
SuperHyperClique” in an extreme SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and 1199
background but “extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “extreme 1200
preliminarily background since there are some ambiguities about the extreme 1202
SuperHyperCardinality arise from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “extreme 1203
SuperHyperNeighborhood”, “extreme Quasi-SuperHyperClique”, and “extreme 1204
SuperHyperClique” are up. 1205
Thus, let zExtreme Number , NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood and 1206
GExtreme SuperHyperClique be an extreme number, an extreme SuperHyperNeighborhood 1207
and an extreme SuperHyperClique and the new terms are up. 1208

∪zExtreme Number {NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood |Extreme Cardinality
38/90
1209
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class =
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality
= zExtreme Number |
1210
{NExtreme SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zExtreme Number [zExtreme Number ]Extreme Class |
1211
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = max zExtreme Number }.
And with go back to initial structure, 1212

= 2}.
1213
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1214
1215
|NExtreme SuperHyperSet |Extreme Cardinality = 2}.
39/90
Thus, in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), the all interior 1216
extreme SuperHyperVertices belong to any extreme quasi-SuperHyperClique if for any 1217
of them, and any of other corresponded extreme SuperHyperVertex, the two interior 1218
extreme SuperHyperVertices are mutually extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with no 1219
extreme exception at all. 1220
Proposition 3.7. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The 1221
any extreme SuperHyperClique only contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices 1222
and all exterior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge 1223
where there’s any of them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s 1224
all extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception but everything is possible 1225
about extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1226
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme 1227
SuperHyperEdge ESHE has some extreme SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all extreme 1228
numbers of those extreme SuperHyperVertices from that extreme SuperHyperEdge 1229
excluding excluding more than r distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any 1230
given extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an 1231
extreme SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp extreme bound for 1232
extreme cardinality. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1233
The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an 1234
extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an 1235
extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices in common but it 1236
isn’t an extreme SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t have 1237
the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme 1238
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have a some 1239
SuperHyperVertices in common. The extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 1240
SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 1241
SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t an extreme 1242
SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t do the extreme procedure such that such that 1243
there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme SuperHyperVertices in 1244
common [there are at least one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside implying there’s, 1245
sometimes in the connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), an extreme 1246
SuperHyperVertex, titled its extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, to that extreme 1247
SuperHyperVertex in the extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the extreme 1248
procedure”.]. There’s only one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the intended 1249
extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of extreme 1250
SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious extreme SuperHyperClique, VESHE is up. 1251
The obvious simple extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperClique, 1252
VESHE , is a extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE , includes only all extreme 1253
SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of extreme pairs are titled 1254
extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1255
ESHG : (V, E). Since the extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1256
VESHE , is the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality of a extreme 1257
SuperHyperEdge to have an extreme SuperHyperVertex in common. Thus, a connected 1259
extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The any extreme SuperHyperClique only 1260
contains all interior extreme SuperHyperVertices and all exterior extreme 1261
SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 1262
them has all possible extreme SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all extreme 1263
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception but everything is possible about 1264
extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods and extreme SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1265
Remark 3.8. The words “ extreme SuperHyperClique” and “extreme 1266
40/90
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum extreme type-style. In other words, 1267
they either refer to the maximum extreme SuperHyperNumber or to the minimum 1268
extreme SuperHyperNumber and the extreme SuperHyperSet either with the maximum 1269
extreme SuperHyperCardinality or with the minimum extreme SuperHyperCardinality. 1270
Proposition 3.9. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1271
Consider an extreme SuperHyperDominating. Then an extreme SuperHyperClique has 1272
only one extreme representative in. 1273
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider an 1274
extreme SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (3.7), the extreme results 1275
are up. Thus on a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), and in an 1276
extreme SuperHyperDominating, an extreme SuperHyperClique has only one extreme 1277
representative in. 1278
4 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1279
The previous extreme approaches apply on the upcoming extreme results on extreme 1280
SuperHyperClasses. 1281
Proposition 4.1. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1282
an extreme SuperHyperClique-style with the maximum extreme SuperHyperCardinality is 1283
an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices. 1284
Proposition 4.2. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Then 1285
an extreme SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 1286
SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme 1287
SuperHyperVertices from the unique extreme SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any 1288
interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from the extreme unique SuperHyperEdges. An 1289
extreme SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of all the interior extreme 1290
SuperHyperVertices without any minus on SuperHyperNeighborhoods. 1291
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Assume an extreme

SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Then every
extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge with others in
common. Thus those extreme SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in
an extreme SuperHyperClique. Those extreme SuperHyperVertices are potentially
included in an extreme style-SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
41/90

z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
E
The main definition of the extreme SuperHyperClique has two titles. An extreme 1305
quasi-SuperHyperClique and its corresponded quasi-maximum extreme 1306

42/90

= zExtreme Number |
And then, 1328

= 2}.
43/90
1330
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1331
1332

1349
= zExtreme Number |
44/90
1350

= 2}.
1352
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1353
1354
extreme exception at all. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1359
ESHG : (V, E). Let an extreme SuperHyperEdge ESHE has some extreme 1360
SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all extreme numbers of those extreme 1361
SuperHyperVertices from that extreme SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than 1362
r distinct extreme SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given extreme SuperHyperSet of 1363
the extreme SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an extreme SuperHyperClique with 1364
the least cardinality, the lower sharp extreme bound for extreme cardinality. Assume a 1365
connected extreme SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The extreme SuperHyperSet of 1366
45/90
the extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 1367
extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have 1368
some extreme SuperHyperVertices in common but it isn’t an extreme 1369
SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t have the maximum extreme cardinality of an 1370
extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an extreme 1371
SuperHyperEdge to have a some SuperHyperVertices in common. The extreme 1372
SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} is the maximum 1373
extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of extreme SuperHyperVertices but 1374
it isn’t an extreme SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t do the extreme procedure such 1375
that such that there’s an extreme SuperHyperEdge to have some extreme 1376
SuperHyperVertices in common [there are at least one extreme SuperHyperVertex 1377
outside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected extreme SuperHyperGraph 1378
ESHG : (V, E), an extreme SuperHyperVertex, titled its extreme SuperHyperNeighbor, 1379
to that extreme SuperHyperVertex in the extreme SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do 1380
“the extreme procedure”.]. There’s only one extreme SuperHyperVertex outside the 1381
intended extreme SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of extreme 1382
Example 4.3. In the Figure (21), the connected extreme SuperHyperPath 1398
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The extreme SuperHyperSet, corresponded 1399
to E5 , VE5 , of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme 1400
SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (21), is the 1401
Proposition 4.4. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 1403
Then an extreme SuperHyperClique is a extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 1404
SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exceptions on the form of interior extreme 1405
SuperHyperVertices from the same extreme SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any 1406
extreme SuperHyperVertex. An extreme SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of all 1407
the extreme SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum extreme cardinality. 1408
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Assume an extreme

{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
46/90
Figure 21. An extreme SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of extreme Super-

HyperClique in the Example (4.3)
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
E
47/90


48/90
= zExtreme Number |
And then, 1445

= 2}.
1447
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
49/90
1448
1449

1466
= zExtreme Number |
1467
50/90
1468

= 2}.
1470
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1471
1472
51/90
Example 4.5. In the Figure (22), the connected extreme SuperHyperCycle 1516
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, , 1517
corresponded to E8 , VE8 , by the Algorithm in previous result, of the extreme 1518
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in the 1519
extreme SuperHyperModel (22), corresponded to E5 , VE8 , is the extreme 1520
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Then 1522
an extreme SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 1523
SuperHyperVertices, not extreme excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only all 1524
extreme exceptions in the extreme form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from 1525
common extreme SuperHyperEdge, extreme including only one extreme SuperHyperEdge. 1526
An extreme SuperHyperClique has the extreme number of the extreme cardinality of the 1527
one extreme SuperHyperEdge. 1528
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Assume an extreme

{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
52/90
Figure 22. An extreme SuperHyperCycle Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme

SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (4.5)
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
E
53/90


= zExtreme Number |
54/90
And then, 1565

= 2}.
1567
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1568
1569
55/90

1586
= zExtreme Number |
1587
1588

= 2}.
56/90
1590
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1591
1592
57/90
Figure 23. An extreme SuperHyperStar Associated to the extreme Notions of extreme

SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (4.7)
Example 4.7. In the Figure (23), the connected extreme SuperHyperStar 1636
ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by 1637
the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the 1638
connected extreme SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel 1639
(23), , corresponded to E5 , VE5 , is the extreme SuperHyperClique. 1640
Proposition 4.8. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). 1641
Then an extreme SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 1642
SuperHyperVertices with no any extreme exceptions in the form of interior extreme 1643
SuperHyperVertices titled extreme SuperHyperNeighbors with only no exception. An 1644
extreme SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number of on extreme cardinality 1645
of the first SuperHyperPart plus extreme SuperHyperNeighbors. 1646
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Assume an

extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyperVertices.
Then every extreme SuperHyperVertex has at least one extreme SuperHyperEdge with
58/90
others in common. Thus those extreme SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be

contained in an extreme SuperHyperClique. Those extreme SuperHyperVertices are
potentially included in an extreme style-SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
E
59/90


= zExtreme Number |
60/90
And then, 1683

= 2}.
1685
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1686
1687
61/90

1704
= zExtreme Number |
1705
1706

= 2}.
1708
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
62/90
1709
1710
63/90
Figure 24. An extreme SuperHyperBipartite extreme Associated to the extreme

Notions of extreme SuperHyperClique in the Example (4.9)
Example 4.9. In the extreme Figure (24), the connected extreme 1754
SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and extreme featured. The 1755
obtained extreme SuperHyperSet, by the extreme Algorithm in previous extreme result, 1756
of the extreme SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperBipartite 1757
ESHB : (V, E), in the extreme SuperHyperModel (24), , corresponded to E6 , VE6 , is 1758
the extreme SuperHyperClique. 1759
Proposition 4.10. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1760
ESHM : (V, E). Then an extreme SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of 1761
the interior extreme SuperHyperVertices with only no extreme exception in the extreme 1762
form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from an extreme SuperHyperPart and only 1763
no exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart 1764
titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than one of them. An 1765
extreme SuperHyperClique has the extreme maximum number on all the extreme 1766
summation on the extreme cardinality of the all extreme SuperHyperParts form one 1767
SuperHyperEdges not plus any. 1768
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Assume

an extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyperVertices.
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
64/90
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
E
65/90


= zExtreme Number |
And then, 1805
66/90

= 2}.
1807
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1808
1809

67/90
1826
= zExtreme Number |
1827
1828

= 2}.
1830
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1831
1832
68/90
Example 4.11. In the Figure (25), the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite 1876
ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and extreme featured. The obtained extreme 1877
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous extreme result, of the extreme 1878
SuperHyperVertices of the connected extreme SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), 1879
, corresponded to E3 , VE3 , in the extreme SuperHyperModel (25), is the extreme 1880
Proposition 4.12. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). 1882
Then an extreme SuperHyperClique is an extreme SuperHyperSet of the interior extreme 1883
SuperHyperVertices, not excluding the extreme SuperHyperCenter, with only no 1884
69/90
Figure 25. An extreme SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of extreme

SuperHyperClique in the Example (4.11)
exception in the form of interior extreme SuperHyperVertices from same extreme 1885
SuperHyperEdge with not the exclusion. An extreme SuperHyperClique has the extreme 1886
maximum number on all the extreme number of all the extreme SuperHyperEdges have 1887
common extreme SuperHyperNeighbors inside for an extreme SuperHyperVertex with the 1888
not exclusion. 1889
Proof. Assume a connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Assume an

extreme SuperHyperEdge has z extreme number of the extreme SuperHyperVertices.
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

z
70/90

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


71/90
= zExtreme Number |
And then, 1926

= 2}.
1928
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
72/90
1929
1930

1947
= zExtreme Number |
1948
73/90
1949

= 2}.
1951
= zExtreme Number |
= 2}.
1952
1953
74/90
Figure 26. An extreme SuperHyperWheel extreme Associated to the extreme Notions

of extreme SuperHyperClique in the extreme Example (4.13)
Example 4.13. In the extreme Figure (??), the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel 1997
N SHW : (V, E), is extreme highlighted and featured. The obtained extreme 1998
SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the extreme SuperHyperVertices 1999
of the connected extreme SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E), , corresponded to E5 , 2000
VE6 , in the extreme SuperHyperModel (??), is the extreme SuperHyperClique. 2001
75/90
5 General Extreme Results 2002
For the extreme SuperHyperClique, extreme SuperHyperClique, and the extreme 2003
SuperHyperClique, some general results are introduced. 2004
Remark 5.1. Let remind that the extreme SuperHyperClique is “redefined” on the 2005
positions of the alphabets. 2006
Corollary 5.2. Assume extreme SuperHyperClique. Then 2007
extreme extremeSuperHyperClique =
{theextremeSuperHyperCliqueof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|extremecardinalityamidthoseextremeSuperHyperClique. }
plus one SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on the 2008
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 2009
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 2010
Corollary 5.3. Assume a extreme SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of the 2011
alphabet. Then the notion of extreme SuperHyperClique and extreme SuperHyperClique 2012
coincide. 2013
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a extreme 2015
SuperHyperClique if and only if it’s a extreme SuperHyperClique. 2016
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 2018
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 2019
Corollary 5.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a extreme SuperHyperGraph on the 2020
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its extreme SuperHyperClique is its extreme 2021
SuperHyperClique and reversely. 2022
Corollary 5.7. Assume a extreme SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 2023
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 2024
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its extreme SuperHyperClique is its 2025
extreme SuperHyperClique and reversely. 2026
Corollary 5.8. Assume a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its extreme 2027
SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its extreme SuperHyperClique isn’t 2028
well-defined. 2029
Corollary 5.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 2030
extreme SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its extreme SuperHyperClique 2031
isn’t well-defined. 2032
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 2034
Then its extreme SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its extreme 2035
SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined. 2036
Corollary 5.11. Assume a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its extreme 2037
SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its extreme SuperHyperClique is 2038
well-defined. 2039
76/90
Corollary 5.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then its 2040
extreme SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its extreme SuperHyperClique is 2041
well-defined. 2042
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 2044
Then its extreme SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its extreme 2045
SuperHyperClique is well-defined. 2046
Proposition 5.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 2047
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2048
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2049
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2050
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2051
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2052
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2053
Proposition 5.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 2054
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2055
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2056
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2057
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2058
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2059
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2060
Proposition 5.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then an 2061
independent SuperHyperSet is 2062
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2063
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2064
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2065
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2066
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2067
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2068
Proposition 5.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperUniform 2069
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 2070
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2071
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2072
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2073
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2074
77/90
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2075
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2076
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2077
Proposition 5.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is a 2078
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 2079
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2080
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2081
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2082
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2083
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2084
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2085
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2086
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 2088
(i) : the extreme SuperHyperClique; 2089
(ii) : the extreme SuperHyperClique; 2090
(iii) : the connected extreme SuperHyperClique; 2091
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperClique; 2092
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperClique; 2093
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperClique. 2094
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2095
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2096
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 2098
(i) : the dual extreme SuperHyperClique; 2099
(ii) : the dual extreme SuperHyperClique; 2100
(iii) : the dual connected extreme SuperHyperClique; 2101
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperClique; 2102
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperClique; 2103
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-extreme SuperHyperClique. 2104
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2105
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 2108
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 2109
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 2110
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 2111
78/90
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2115
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2116
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2117
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 2120
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 2121
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 2122
is a 2123
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2127
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2128
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2129
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 2132
number of 2133
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2137
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2138
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2139
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 2140
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 2141
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2142
Proposition 5.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. The number 2144
of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 2145
79/90
(iv) : extreme SuperHyperClique; 2149
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2150
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2151
Proposition 5.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then the 2152
number is at most O(ESHG) and the extreme number is at most On (ESHG). 2153
Proposition 5.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 2154
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the extreme number is 2155
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 2156
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2160
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2162
Proposition 5.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a extreme SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. The 2163
number is 0 and the extreme number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the 2164
setting of dual 2165
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2169
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2170
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2171
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 2173
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) 2175
and the extreme number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 2176
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2180
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2181
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2182
80/90
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 2184
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the extreme number is 2185
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 2186
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2192
Proposition 5.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 2193
extreme SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 2194
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily 2195
N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the extreme SuperHyperGraphs. 2196
Proposition 5.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 2197
a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such 2198
that 2199
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 2200
(ii) vx ∈ E. 2201
Proposition 5.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. If S is 2202
a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique, then 2203
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 2204
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 2205
Proposition 5.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph. Then 2206
(i) Γ ≤ O; 2207
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 2208
Proposition 5.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong extreme SuperHyperGraph which is 2209
connected. Then 2210
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 2211
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2212
Proposition 5.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 2213
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 2214
SuperHyperClique; 2215
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2216
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2217
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 2218
a dual extreme SuperHyperClique. 2219
81/90
Proposition 5.37. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 2220
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 2221
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 2223
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 2224
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2225
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 2226
dual extreme SuperHyperClique. 2227
Proposition 5.38. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 2228
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 2229
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 2231
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2232
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 2233
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 2234
Proposition 5.39. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 2236
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 2237
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2239
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2240
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 2241
Proposition 5.40. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 2243
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal extreme SuperHyperClique; 2244
(ii) Γ = 1; 2245
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 2246
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual extreme SuperHyperClique. 2247
Proposition 5.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 2248
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 2249
maximal SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2250
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 2251
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 2252
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 2253
maximal SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2254
Proposition 5.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 2255
82/90
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 2256
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 2258
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

b n c+1 ; 2259
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 2260
Proposition 5.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 2262
bnc
2
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 2265

bnc ; 2266
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2267
extreme SuperHyperClique. 2268
Proposition 5.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of extreme 2269
SuperHyperStars with common extreme SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 2270
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive extreme 2271
SuperHyperClique for N SHF; 2272
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 2273
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 2274
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual extreme 2275
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 2276
Proposition 5.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 2277
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common extreme SuperHyperVertex 2278
SuperHyperSet. Then 2279
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive extreme 2280
SuperHyperClique for N SHF; 2281
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 2282

b n c+1 for N SHF : (V, E); 2283
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal extreme 2284
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 2285
Proposition 5.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 2286
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common extreme SuperHyperVertex 2287
SuperHyperSet. Then 2288
bnc
2
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E); 2290
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 2291
83/90
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 2292
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal extreme SuperHyperClique 2293
for N SHF : (V, E). 2294
following statements hold; 2296
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 2297
t-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique, then S is an 2298
s-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2299
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2300
t-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual 2301
s-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2302
following statements hold; 2304
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 2305
t-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique, then S is an 2306
s-SuperHyperPowerful extreme SuperHyperClique; 2307
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2308
t-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual 2309
s-SuperHyperPowerful extreme SuperHyperClique. 2310
Proposition 5.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 2311
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 2312
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2313
2-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2314
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2315
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 2317
extreme SuperHyperClique; 2318
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2319
r-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2320
Proposition 5.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-extreme 2321
SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 2322
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b 2r c

+ 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2323
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2325
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 2327
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2329
r-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2330
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2332
84/90
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2333
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2335
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 2337
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2340
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2342
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2343
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2345
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 2347
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique; 2348
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2350
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 2352
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive extreme 2353
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2355
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2357
2-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2360
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 2362
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2363
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2365
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2367
2-SuperHyperDefensive extreme SuperHyperClique. 2370
85/90
6 Extreme Problems and Extreme Questions 2371
In what follows, some “Extreme problems” and some “Extreme questions” are 2372
Extremely proposed. 2373
The SuperHyperClique and the Extreme SuperHyperClique are Extremely defined 2374
on a real-world Extreme application, titled “Cancer’s Extreme recognitions”. 2375
Question 6.1. Which the else Extreme SuperHyperModels could be defined based on 2376
Cancer’s Extreme recognitions? 2377
Question 6.2. Are there some Extreme SuperHyperNotions related to 2378
SuperHyperClique and the Extreme SuperHyperClique? 2379
Question 6.3. Are there some Extreme Algorithms to be defined on the Extreme 2380
SuperHyperModels to compute them Extremely? 2381
Question 6.4. Which the Extreme SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 2382
SuperHyperClique and the Extreme SuperHyperClique? 2383
Problem 6.5. The SuperHyperClique and the Extreme SuperHyperClique do Extremely 2384
a Extreme SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s Extreme recognitions and they’re based 2385
Extremely on Extreme SuperHyperClique, are there else Extremely? 2386
Problem 6.6. Which the fundamental Extreme SuperHyperNumbers are related to 2387
these Extreme SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 2388
Problem 6.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s Extreme recognitions 2389
concerning the multiple types of Extreme SuperHyperNotions? 2390
References 2391
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2392
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 2393
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 2394
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 2395
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 2396
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 2397
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 2398
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 2399
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 2400
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 2401
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 2402
(2022) 242-263. 2403
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 2404
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 2405
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 2406
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 2407
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 2408
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 2409
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 2410
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 2411
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 2412
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 2413
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 2414
86/90
6. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 2415
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 2416
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 2417
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 2418
7. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 2419
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 2420
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 2421
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 2422
8. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 2423
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2424
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 2425
9. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 2426
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 2427
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 2428
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 2429
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 2430
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 2431
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 2432
11. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 2433
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2434
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 2435
12. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 2436
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 2437
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 2438
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 2439
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 2441
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 2442
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 2443
14. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 2444
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2445
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 2446
15. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 2447
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 2448
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 2449
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2450
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 2451
16. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2452
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 2453
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 2454
17. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 2455
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 2456
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 2457
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 2458
87/90
18. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 2459
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 2460
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 2461
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 2462
19. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 2463
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 2464
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2465
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 2466
20. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 2467
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 2468
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 2469
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 2470
21. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 2471
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 2472
22. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 2474
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 2475
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 2476
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 2477
23. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 2478
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 2479
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 2480
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 2481
24. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 2482
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 2483
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 2486
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 2487
26. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 2488
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2489
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 2490
27. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 2491
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 2492
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2493
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 2494
28. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 2495
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2496
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 2497
29. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 2498
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 2499
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2500
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 2501
30. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 2502
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2503
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 2504
88/90
31. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 2505
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 2506
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 2507
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 2508
32. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 2509
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 2510
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 2511
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 2512
33. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 2513
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 2514
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 2515
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 2516
34. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 2517
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 2518
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 2519
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 2520
35. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 2521
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 2522
36. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 2523
(2016) 86-101. 2524
37. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 2525
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 2526
38. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 2527
39. M. Akram, and G. Shahzadi, “Operations on Single-Valued Neutrosophic 2528
Graphs”, Journal of uncertain systems 11 (1) (2017) 1-26. 2529
40. G. Argiroffo et al., “Polyhedra associated with locating-dominating, open 2530
locating-dominating and locating total-dominating sets in graphs”, Discrete 2531
Applied Mathematics (2022). (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2022.06.025.) 2532
41. L. Aronshtam, and H. Ilani, “Bounds on the average and minimum attendance 2533
in preference-based activity scheduling”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 306 2534
(2022) 114-119. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2021.09.024.) 2535
42. J. Asplund et al., “A Vizing-type result for semi-total domination”, Discrete 2536
Applied Mathematics 258 (2019) 8-12. 2537
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2018.11.023.) 2538
43. K. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets”, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20 (1986) 87-96. 2539
44. R.A. Beeler et al., “Total domination cover rubbling”, Discrete Applied 2540
Mathematics 283 (2020) 133-141. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2019.12.020.) 2541
45. S. Bermudo et al., “On the global total k-domination number of graphs”, 2542
Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 42-50. 2543
46. M. Bold, and M. Goerigk, “Investigating the recoverable robust single machine 2545
scheduling problem under interval uncertainty”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 2546
313 (2022) 99-114. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2022.02.005.) 2547
89/90
47. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 2548
(2016) 86-101. 2549
48. V. Gledel et al., “Maker–Breaker total domination game”, Discrete Applied 2550
Mathematics 282 (2020) 96-107. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2019.11.004.) 2551
49. M.A. Henning, and A. Yeo, “A new upper bound on the total domination 2552
number in graphs with minimum degree six ”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 302 2553
(2021) 1-7. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2021.05.033.) 2554
50. V. Irsic, “Effect of predomination and vertex removal on the game total 2555
domination number of a graph”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 257 (2019) 2556
216-225. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2018.09.011.) 2557
51. B.S. Panda, and P. Goyal, “Hardness results of global total k-domination 2558
problem in graphs”, Discrete Applied Mathematics (2021). 2559
52. N. Shah, and A. Hussain, “Neutrosophic soft graphs”, Neutrosophic Set and 2561
Systems 11 (2016) 31-44. 2562
53. A. Shannon and K.T. Atanassov, “A first step to a theory of the intuitionistic 2563
fuzzy graphs”, Proceeding of FUBEST (Lakov, D., Ed.) Sofia (1994) 59-61. 2564
54. F. Smarandache, “A Unifying field in logics neutrosophy: Neutrosophic 2565
probability, set and logic, Rehoboth: ” American Research Press (1998). 2566
55. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 2567
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 2568
56. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control 8 (1965) 338-354. 2569
90/90

Extreme SuperHyperClique As The Firm Scheme of Confrontation Under Cancer's Recognition As The Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extreme SuperHyperClique As The Firm Scheme of Confrontation Under Cancer's Recognition As The Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 17 January 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202301.0308.

Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 2

Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in 3

The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 4

Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

In this research, new setting is introduced for assuming a SuperHyperGraph. Then a 10

“SuperHyperClique” C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 11

the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s 12

a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a 13

SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−SuperHyperClique” is a maximal SuperHyperClique of 14

SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 15

expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 16

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 17

Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 18

holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperClique” is a 19

maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 20

neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 22

|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 23

The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 24

second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. A basic 25

familiarity with Extreme SuperHyperClique theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and 26

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed. 27

Keywords: (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph, Extreme SuperHyperClique, 28

Cancer’s Extreme Recognition 29

AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 30

by Shannon and Atanassov (1994), a unifying field in logics neutrosophy: neutrosophic 34

in Ref. [47] by Broumi et al. (2016), operations on single-valued neutrosophic graphs in 37

and Hussain (2016), bounds on the average and minimum attendance in 39

preference-based activity scheduling in Ref. [41] by Aronshtam and Ilani (2022), 40

© 2023 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

locating-dominating, open locating-dominating and locating total-dominating sets in 43

The formalization of the notions on the framework of Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique 55

theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) 56

Definition 2.1. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique). 59

Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 60

(i) an extreme SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 61

N SHG : (V, E) is an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 62

SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 63

SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount 64

of extreme SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices 65

given by that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also 66

called an extreme (z, −)−SuperHyperClique extreme SuperHyperClique 67

C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme 68

type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with 69

the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the 70

extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z extreme SuperHyperEdge amid 71

an amount of extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet 72

of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an extreme 73

(−, x)−SuperHyperClique extreme SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an 74

extreme SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet 75

of the extreme SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality 76

of an extreme SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that 77

there’s an amount of extreme SuperHyperEdges amid x extreme 78

SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme SuperHyperSet of the extreme 79

SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called an extreme (z, x)−SuperHyperClique 80

extreme SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an extreme SuperHyperGraph 81

N SHG : (V, E) if it’s an extreme type-SuperHyperSet of the extreme 82

SuperHyperVertices with the maximum extreme cardinality of an extreme 83

SuperHyperSet S of the extreme SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z extreme 84

SuperHyperEdges amid x extreme SuperHyperVertices given by that extreme 85

SuperHyperSet of the extreme SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the extreme extension 86

SuperHyperNotion of the extreme SuperHyperClique in the extreme 88

SuperHyperGraphs where in the extreme setting of the graphs, there’s an extreme 89